A light conversation

     

 

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).