Rhetorical Situations: Aragon at the Black Gate

Sorry for the low quality of this video, it was the only one I could find that allowed embedding!  I decided to use Aragon’s speech from the Lord of the Rings (Return of the King) series.  The main protagonist, Frodo, is sent to Mordor to destroy an evil ring that would bring destruction to Middle Earth.  Prior to this speech, Aragon and his men had recently won a battle in Gondor.  Although victorious, they realize that they still have a long road ahead of them.  Aragon recognized that it was necessary to distract Sauron (antagonist); otherwise Frodo’s objective would be futile.  If they did not act now, winning the battle would be unavailing, as Sauron and his leagues of soldiers would obliterate them.  As a result, Aragon and his men travel to the Black Gate to challenge Sauron and buy Frodo time.

Aragon readily depicts exigency towards his audience in his speech.  Aragon’s main purpose in his speech is to request the help of his soldiers and wage war. If no one is willing to challenge Sauron and buy Frodo time, humanity itself will be lost.  The exigency described here makes it absolutely necessary for Aragon and his men to fight at Mordor.

In addition, the pathos strategy is used frequently throughout Aragon’s speech.  In the beginning of his speech he says, “I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.  A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day.”  Aragon relates to his audience by sharing the same fears that he has, and he reassures them that if they can band together as brothers, then there is nothing to fear.  Finally, Aragon carries his words and tone out with valor and audacity.   These aspects were extremely pertinent into inspiring his men while using the pathos strategy.

Aragon displays the ethos factor as the speaker.  He is the heir of Isildur and is the rightful king of Gondor.  Throughout the books and the movies his character is depicted as just and kingly.  In addition, he was a leader in their last battle and was primarily responsible into leading his army to victory in Gondor.  Such authority makes him a strong ethos element.

Finally, I think the logos of this speech can be again attributed for the need of Aragon’s men to lead humanity to victory.  The logical situation would be to challenge Sauron and buy time for Frodo.   I honestly had a tough time to the logos appeal in this speech.  Does anyone see something I do not?

As explained, I believe that this speech portrays a rhetorical situational adequately.  Two of the three appeal schemes shine through and are used prominently.  Aragon uses these appeals to his advantage and he is able to convince his men into battle.  The battle buys just enough time for Frodo to destroy the ring and humanity is saved.

Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation”

In Bitzer’s essay, “The Rhetorical Situation”, he aims to persuade his readers that a rhetorical situation must precede a rhetorical discourse.

As specified by Bitzer, he differentiated between reader and audience.  Bitzer stated that an audience is one that “consists only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change.”  According to Bitzer, a reader is capable of listening.  Despite this fact, a reader is not capable of change and does not fit the definition of an audience.

I disagree when Bitzer asserts that scientific and poetic discourse is not rhetorical because neither requires an audience to achieve their goals.  I cannot speak much of poetic discourse, however I have spent three years within the computer science major.  During my time in the major, I realize that it is crucial for any researcher to gain adequate funding.  Many times these scientists have aims that they cannot reach due to finance constraints.  Furthermore, scientists may not have a choice in what they are researching.  For instance, funding is sometimes granted when the scientist consents to put forth their efforts towards a particular subject matter.  For these reasons, not all scientists can achieve their goals simply because of their knowledge.  Without the consent and agreement of the audience, this sometimes is impossible.  Oftentimes, the audience has the decision whether they will give the situation a opportunity for change.

Furthermore, Bitzer states that both scientific and poetic discourse is not rhetorical because neither group is intended to bring change.  I also disagree with this statement as many scientists research for change, such as a change in breast cancer, or even a significant change in technology that would benefit society.  A poet might be writing for change – what of the writer who dedicates their work to political activism and for change?