Memorable_Ideas

The memorable ideas that resonate throughout texts, play a significant part in sustaining the enduring value of a variety of texts and it is mainly through the use of rhetoric that these memorable ideas are maintained through time. This can be seen in the speeches Spotty-handed Villainesses (1994) by Margaret Atwood, Funeral Service for an Unknown Soldier (1993) by Paul Keating and Noel Pearson’s An Australian History for us all (1996) as all three texts persuade through language, ensuring that the concerns remain memorable not only in their respective contexts, but also to contemporary audiences. Atwood’s speech Spotty-handed villainesses is a free flowing deliberative dialogue on the altering role of female characters in literature and the impact of her shifting milieu on this change. Her speech was constructed in a post feminist context allowing her to question the negative ramifications of feminism. She challenges the notion that it is “unfeminist” to portray an evil woman, as she believed bad behaviour was the “monopoly of men”. Her conversational style of speaking, while due to the casual setting also added to her ethos as it gave a sense of authenticity to the ideas that she was presenting, highlighted through her frequent use of personal anecdotes, “...when my daughter was five” which allows the audience to empathise with Atwood. She emphasises on the “spottiness of a spotty woman”, providing a memorable visual image while allowing the audience to sustain interest in her topic of discussion. She emphasises this point through her use of tricolon “spot as in guilt, spot as in blood, spot as in out damned” with the intertextual reference to Macbeth, “out damned” which again adds to her ethos by showcasing her knowledge of classical texts. It is also through her reference to such villainesses, that she criticises the perceived feminist requirement that women be presented as admirable with “evil woman...a somewhat closed of road” ignoring the “evil in us”. This enduring value was maintained as her audience, a group of intellectual, middle aged feminists, would have found her topic of discussion, insightful and memorable as she uses direct language, “you probably get the idea”, which ensures her audience’s sustained interest, allowing her speech to be memorable, and hence allowing its values to resonate through time. Keating’s Funeral Service of the unknown Australian Soldier relied less on ethos, and more on pathos to convey an equally memorable text of which the values of have also endure through time. It was given on the 75th anniversary of Armistice day, the day that ended the first world war. It was therefore well set for Keating, as Prime minister to deliver a speech commemorating and reflecting on the selfless sacrifices made by all the Australian casualties of war and armed conflict. This was symbolised through the memorial of one unknown soldier of whom we don’t know “rank or battalion”. Keating made his speech memorable to the audience through his use of inclusive language, “we” and “us” in which he does not differentiate himself, “He is all of them. And one of us”, inciting patriotism amongst his audience. This unifies them as Australians with Australian values. Keating also used anaphora to stress the anonymity of the soldier through his repetition of “We don’t know” which illustrates the possibility of who he could be. Keating also experimented with structure, by purposely using short sentences and paragraphs when using emotive language such as “We will never know who this Australian was” which gave time for the audience to reflect on what has been said. This ensures a lasting impression being made on the listeners, allowing for the speech’s enduring value to be maintained. Noel Pearson’s speech, One Australian History for us all was also a speech with the ability to create memorable ideas as it was about the topical issue of Aboriginal reconciliation. This was a divisive topic as the Mabo case had been recently concluded and the then prime minister was trying to make amendments to the Native title act and Pearson realised this, by beginning his speech in humility, saying he cannot “promise his teacher’s rigour” which instantly adds to the audience’s ethos as he is accepting that his speech is not flawless. Pearson understood that his audience were white intellectual European Australians and hence, he pursuaded them using logos, which served his purpose very well. This is reflected through his deep understanding of the complexities of the situation, stating that “I, myself am equivocal” . Similarly to Keating’s speech, Pearson used inclusive language, “our nation” and “we” which not only enabled the audience to feel included, but also furthered his position to bridge the gap between the indigenous Australians and European Australians, serving his overall purpose. Pearson also emphasised his point with the juxtaposition of emotive language, which enabled his speech not only to be memorable to his audience, but reverberate through time and this can be seen by contrasting the treatment of aboriginals, a “legacy of unutterable shame”, contrasting the “celebration” of the Anzac spirit. By contrasting both these aspects of Australia’s history, he made sure not to offend, or appear heretical, and this is a common aspect of Pearson’s speech, in which he encourages rational and intelligent dialogue, for the most part avoiding emotive rhetoric. This ensured the enduring value of his speech, as many of the issues he raised are still relevant in today’s society and his balanced approach ensured that his audience at the time listened to his viewpoint, even though it was a highly charged issue.