Problem
I. Provide developed, specific, and critically thoughtful responses to all of the following questions: (extra potential kudos/points if you apply the Douglass and X readings to questions A-D as well)
1. What do you think Naylor and Walker redefines and what do you think are their purposes in doing so? In other words, what prior assumptions of that word are they challenging and why are they re-defining it in their own terms?
2. What kind of specific narrative/descriptive/other rhetorical techniques do they primarily use to achieve their purpose? Be specific.
3. What are some of your favorite descriptive and/or narrative technique lines/quotes (figurative language, dialogue, sensory details, etc..) from their stories and explain why you like them or what they add to their stories?
4. From the secondary readings of trauma or using your own prior knowledge of trauma, how do you think trauma, or the different types of trauma factor in to their stories?
5. When Naylor talks about the meaning of a word or the power of language or the lack thereof at the beginning of her essay, what does that mean to you or how does it relate to you? Why do you think she needs to explain this before she starts her narrative? Do you agree or disagree with her opinions regarding written vs spoken word, consensus of language, etc.. ? Explain.
II. Then, using what you learned about rhetorical and/or stylistic strategies (recommend you use the rhetorical strategy chart/checklist I provided), rhetorically analyze a secondary/supplemental source of your choosing by discussing the rhetorical strategies the writer chooses to make in order to make the writing effective to the audience and/or you as the reader. In other words, what are the strategies/choices the writer is making and why/how is it effective to you or the intended audience? Keep in mind that rhetorical analysis can also apply to other mediums/genres such audio/visual ones like Ted Talks.