In a nutshell, the message of this video
proposed that rhetoric through multimodal means is more powerful than the
rhetoric of mono-modal means, such as text by itself or image by itself. Of
course, the actors briefly covered only the most general topics to reach this
conclusion; their discussion certainly didn’t encompass all the minute details
that would constitute a more in-depth dialogue. However, I do want to review
what was mentioned in the video in
case anyone had trouble following the thread of conversation.
First, Sadie proposed a thesis:
multimodality is one of the most powerful forms of rhetoric. She mentioned that
Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and
Hobbes, combined single modes—text and image—to create a multimodal work
that effectively influenced readers. Alana disputed Sadie’s statement by
questioning her terms of “image” and “text” and noting that text technically is
an image. At this point, as an audience we realize that Sadie’s thesis is
somewhat flawed because she failed to clarify what she meant by the term
“image.” However, Lucas jumped in to Sadie’s defense; he guessed what Sadie
really meant to say was text and picture.
Lucas explained that any image used to represent a person, place, thing, or
idea is an icon. A subcategory of
icon is picture—an image that is designed to resemble its subject. In contrast, non-pictorial icons such as text don’t resemble their subjects at
all. Because of this arbitrariness, the meaning expressed by non-pictorial
icons is usually fixed and absolute, unlike the multiple fluid meanings
presented by pictures. (Although not explicitly quoted, much of Lucas’
monologue referred to pages 27-28 of Scott McCloud’s book, Understanding Comics.)
Once the matter of terminology was
cleared, Alana suggested a counterclaim to Sadie’s original proposal:
multimodality doesn’t necessarily employ the most effective rhetoric because
pictures are already very persuasive and speak well enough for themselves. She
pointed out that anyone can simply receive
information from a picture; one doesn’t need additional education to understand
a picture. On the other hand, people must have special knowledge and education
in order to perceive text (McCloud 49). Alana also suggested a theory about why pictures are so easy to
understand: we apply past experiences to an image in order to comprehend it.
Going off this theory, Alana stated that if a picture reminds us of certain
memories and experiences, it will always elicit an emotion in us because our
emotions are intricately tied with our experiences (Messaris vii).
Following the line of discussion, Lucas
asserted that emotion is greatly important in rhetorical discourse. Sadie
disagreed and claimed that good argument relies mostly on logos (logic) and ethos
(credibility) rather than pathos
(appeal to emotion). Lucas quickly called out Sadie’s statement as untrue and
retorted that emotion is just an expression of values. In fact, he even
suggested that people argue not with “rationality,” but with values. Alana
agreed and said that some things—such as our values—go beyond the scope of
reason. To illustrate his and Alana’s claims, Lucas referred to Jonathan Swift’s
satirical essay, A Modest Proposal,
in which Swift laid out a detailed argument for eating children to avoid hunger
during a time of famine. He asked Sadie if she was persuaded by Swift’s
argument, to which she replied of course not, murdering people is wrong. Lucas
pointed out that Sadie’s answer was based on her set of values; Alana asked
Sadie if she could reasonably justify why murder is wrong. In this way, Lucas
and Alana attempted to show why argument does rely heavily on pathos, which is a physical
manifestation of our values. Alana also reminded Sadie that our values play a
role in determining someone’s ethos,
or credibility; it is only by identifying with someone and starting off with
shared values that we allow the possibility of being persuaded by them.
Lucas then changed the topic to posit
that personal human histories are really just compilations of stories, or
narratives, because each time we tell them, we reconstruct the events a little
differently each time (Fisher 375). We value meaning and purpose, and stories
helps us discover or create meaning and purpose in life. Alana gave additional
input: people don’t care what someone says unless it’s personal—relevant and
important to them (Goetz). And if we interpret pictures through the lens of
past experience, we can essentially view pictures as stories. Because pictures
involve such personal involvement from the viewer, the viewer could be said to “co-write”
the story of the picture (Messaris xviii). Sadie then inferred that people are
more easily persuaded when they don’t realize they’re being persuaded—they think
the proposed idea was really their own idea—and such would be the case when
someone is asked to “co-write” a story.
Sadie realized the possible rhetorical
effectiveness of pictures, but she also noted a major risk a rhetorician would
take if he only relied on pictures: people could misinterpret the picture, and
then the rhetorician wouldn’t know exactly what he “persuaded” them of! Alana
tried to refute this by giving examples of techniques someone could use to
imply something in pictures. Lucas mentioned that rhetoricians could imply
something in pictures that they wouldn’t necessarily get away with stating in
words. He mentioned how many commercials use pictures to imply someone would
have power and prestige for using their product—a claim that would seem
ridiculous if stated outright (Messaris xxi). To further emphasize Lucas’
point, Alana found a Calvin and Hobbes comic
of Calvin walking away from the TV with a goofy grin on his face while his mom
is turning the television off and looking at him suspiciously. Alana maintained
the comic probably told the story of Calvin watching naughty content on
television, and this in turn could be used as a rhetorical device warning
people of the negative effects TV could have on children.
Sadie admitted that Alana and Lucas
brought up a thought-provoking idea, but she wouldn’t budge from her position
that pictures aren’t great rhetorical tools because they take control from the
rhetorician and place it entirely in the viewers’ hands. She stated that
pictures can’t usefully express analogies, contrasts, and causal claims—something
that one could express easily through text (Messaris x). Using the Calvin and Hobbes comic book as a
reference, Sadie found a panel in which Calvin’s mom is blaming her husband for
them not being able to conceive a girl instead of a boy. Sadie challenged Alana
to understand the causal claim if it could only be shown through picture.
Lucas brought the discussion full circle
by reminding the girls of Sadie’s original proposition: multimodality is one of
the most powerful tools available to rhetoricians. He said that obviously they
discussed some of the pros and cons of text and picture individually—for example,
pictures could effectively imply messages that text couldn’t suggest, but text
could explicitly state certain claims that pictures couldn’t convey—but this
discussion should make them realize that when used in combination, text and
picture could enrich and constrain the meaning presented by the other. Lucas
and Alana then found two different examples of Calvin and Hobbes comics to demonstrate the interconnectedness of
text and picture. Afterward, Lucas summarized that not every meaning can be
realized in every mode in the exact same way. Meaning is realized in
mode-specific articulations (Kress 39). The more nuances of meaning you invite
people to realize and construct, the more they’re interacting with you message,
and therefore, the more likely you can persuade them (Hocks 642).
