The tools Zambreno uses really attract the reader to the Article. Although there seemed to be a lot of confusion and flaws within the article, there are certainly a lot of areas that are very interesting. Such as the transition between the subject of Historic Arthur and Modernized Arthur. It was made pretty clear that she was changing topics when she just clearly stated she was changing topics. It was a clear rhetorical tool that made me think of how it seemed she was breaking the fourth wall between a writer and a reader.
The flaws I saw within the topic though was that there wasn't really any rhetorical tools used to draw the audience towards the thesis statement. Also, the examples used to relate the topic of Modern and Historical Arthur seemed to drag on a lot. She used the correct rhetorical tool of placing an example with idea i.e. she implemented Modern Arthur referring to Historical Arthur by using the plot of Arthur 3000. Although she put and example to the idea, it lost its appeal for like 2-3 pages and that's kind of where I lost interest. All in all, the rhetorical tools were interesting, but i just wasn't to interested in the lasting appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment