Identify the nature of proof in Frank's monologue, siting evidence he used in Charlie's
defense. 15 Points
Logos, Pathos and Ethos are all
represented in Frank's monologue. I will illustrate that below.
Logos applies to reason. It is factual
information as well as logic. Frank "warms up" by stating that it is
wrong for the boy that decided to stay and face the consequences to be in such
trouble, and for the boys who ran like cowards to not suffer any consequence.
This is a logical statement and the direction of the court’s ruling seems
unfair to the viewer after Frank points this out. Next he uses pathos which applies
to emotions. Often times creating a "sympathy" effect. He does this
by stating to the audience that someone offered to buy Charlie’s soul.
Lastly ethos is used. Ethos is appeal to ethics. Frank shows his audience that
he is creditable and has a good character by talking about himself, who he once
used to be, and referring to the things he has seen.
Of the four styles of dramatic or vicarious proof, which did Frank exploit to turn attitudes
around about Charlie? How did this style function in terms of reason? 25 Points
Frank gave his testimony of Charlie by
saying he has, "seen boys like these...their legs ripped off"...and
then he says there is nothing like the sight of an amputated spirit. This
statement in his testimony is very powerful and has the ability to sway the
decisions of the court because it appeals to their emotions.
What cultural myths or images were employed to increase the appeal of
Frank's argument? How did this influence his attempted shift of opinion? 20 Points
The cultural myth that best fits this
situation for me was the value of a challenge. I appreciated the way Frank
illustrated Charlie having the bravery to stay and face the consequences of
what they had done as opposed to running like his piers did. This was very
powerful for me. It showed that there should be a reward for people who are
willing to stick out a challenge and not just take the easy way out.
The triumphant Individual best fits
for Franks Reasoning because Charlie took a risk and did the honorable
thing. He believed in himself and did the right thing, though he knew it would
be the tougher route. In the end, I am sure Charlie comes out triumphant.
Frank argues from authority. In his monologue
he states, "Do you know who you are talking to?" and then he
continues on as mentioned in one of the above questions to state all he has
seen and done. He establishes dominance and then states his opinion. Parallel
reasoning is also used as he compares Charlie’s noble decision to stay and face
the consequences to his friend’s decisions to run. He parallels the two
different types of people by contrasting their different belief systems.
How did Frank's paralinguistic impact his
expression and the meaning of his words? Please specific examples – three will
do. 25 Points
Frank was very powerful in his
presentation of his speech for many reasons. I will list the three that affected
me the most below.
1. Frank uses questions to make his point.
For example, "and what are you doing? You are going to reward George and
destroy Charlie." Questions like these make very strong points and accuse
the judge of being wrong in a subtle, yet more effective way.
2. Frank uses a lot of symbolism and
analogies. An example of this is when he refers to the boys and "Minos".
This creates good imagery and helps the viewers to better understand the weight
of the situation. He does such with pauses in his speech that add to the
effectiveness of his statements by giving the viewer time to process.
3. Often times at the end of Franks sentences
he raises his voice or draws out the word longer than it needs to be, this adds
emphasis to the points he is making.
