This photo is a group of demonic men ready for a satanic ritual. The candles are very cryptic as is the room where this is taking place. The skulls are victims past. The smoke billowing from beneath them is a devils cauldron. They have sword drawn at the throat. There is a Satanic pentagram on the wall. The demeanor of the men is aggressive and violent. They are trying to frighten the victim with their gaze. The next step is sacrifice.
Semiotics at the Devil!
This photo with it's pentagrams, skulls, swords and cryptic black candles, by symbolism alone,is evil according to Northrup Frye's "Essay on Myth". To Frye there are many signs and symbols that tell the story of the demonic in this photo. First there is the pentagram, which today is seen as a sign of Satanic evil. There are also skulls on lances which signify victory according to Shakespeare's Macbeth. There are also cryptic black candles. The black again signifying the dark or the evil. According to the signs alone there appears to be a victorious celebration of evil.
The Ferdinand Saussure Essay "A Course in General Linguistics" states that "the linguistic sign is arbitrary and is not related by any inner relationship. There is no natural relationship between the signifier and the signified." (Rivkin 62) Sometimes advertisers will link that relationship to sell products. Sometimes it is done to capture a moment in time. Whatever the reason; language and linguistics, according to Saussure, doesn't put the two together. We do that after the fact.
Works Cited
Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael.Literary Theory: An Anthology. Eds. 2nd Ed. Blackwell Publishing: 1998.
Frye Lecture. Wexler, Steven, Semiotics and Frye. 07-21-09. Major Critical Theories.CSUN
Aristotle describes rhetoric as "the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion." In the Season 2, March 14, 2006 episode of Boston Legal entitled, “Stick It” attorney Alan Shore, associate at the fictional Crane, Poole, and Schmidt, uses Aristotle’s three appeals; logos, ethos and pathos to try and sway the jury during a freedom of speech case in which his client has decided not to pay her taxes as a form of protest against the federal government.. He uses each appeal or a combination of each to prove his point throughout his summation. He uses logos to prove the logical, ethos for credibility or ethical proof, and pathos to draw on the emotions of the jury. He does this with great courage and skill much like Mark Antony in the persuasive speech William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Though Mark Antony’s speech was all pathos due to the fact that he was playing to the audiences emotions, or as Aristotle put it, “the appeal to the audience’s sympathies and imagination” (). According to Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Aristotle defines the rhetorician as someone who is always able to see what is persuasive.” This is what was had with Shakespeare for Mark Antony and four hundred and nine years later we see it in a YouTube video from a courtroom drama.
Mr. Shore begins his summation, {Alan Shore} “When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't” (Boston). This is where the first combination of pathos and ethos is seen. He uses the word “Ha” (pathos) which constitutes sarcasm. He is trying to elicit that feeling from his audience. He stated fact to begin with which sets up that through ethos his credibility with the jury. The next appeal is seen through logos, “, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended. There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people seem to notice. ” (Stick). The reason for assumption of logos is because he makes a logical assessment. Aristotle would have put it this way, “If the U.S. Government lies about a series of events that are harmful, and no one pays attention when harmful things happen, then it appears that no one pays attention when the government does harmful things.” (This a far stretch, and maybe not the best example, but for the length of this paper let’s use it.) Shore uses this type of logic to convey to his audience, his truth that he wants them to believe.
Throughout the rest of his summation he uses pathos to explain why his client did not pay her taxes, he states emphatically, “Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain control and, in effect, criminalize protest. At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you are wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed”. (Stick) “Stop for a second and try to fathom that”(Stick). For dramatic effect he uses this pause, again Mr. Shore uses pathos even when not speaking to effectively play to his audience. Then another emphatic line that plays terrifically to his audience, “This, in the United States of America! This in the United States of America! Is Melissa Hughes the only one embarrassed” (Stick)? The pathos in Shore’s summation is reminiscent of Mark Antony in that Antony builds the crowd through emotional content into a frenzy of distrust against Brutus and Cassius. Alan Shore effectively takes the jury to a point of agreement and distrust of The United States of America through his emotional and patriotic testimony, “I object to government abusing its power to squash the constitutional freedoms of its citizenry. And, God forbid, anybody challenge it. They're smeared as being a heretic. Melissa Hughes is an American! Melissa Hughes is an American! Melissa Hughes is an American” (Stick)! He concludes with a quote from Adlai Stevenson from 1952 which gives his summation that added ethos that it needs for the jury to take back and decide fate, “It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them" (Stick).
One of the positive things about rhetoric is that it can be used to describe why someone has broken a law. It can used to explain that the person thinks that law is unjust and we don’t like the way a government branch is running OUR country. It is nice to know that even though Alan Shore is a fictional character, there are real attorneys to turn to who will pick our flag and through Aristotle’s Appeals wave it for us. This may seem idealistic, but some of us still believe that right should win even if a corrupt government deems us wrong.
Works Cited
Murray, Penelope and Dorsch, T.S. “Aristotle’s Poetics”. Classic Literary Criticism. Penguin Ltd. New York, NY.Reprinted 2004. Pp 57-97
“Aristotle's Rhetoric”. Stanford University Encyclopedia Philosophy. May 2, 2002. Stanford University
“Stick It!” Boston Legal. By “David E. Kelly”. Performer “James Spader” ABC Televison Season 2, March 14, 2006
