Rhetorical Analysis Of The Article Violent Media Is Good For Kids
In our society, violent media concerns many parents that are willing to protect their children against the bad influence that the news transmits every day. Violence is also found in the form of video games, movies and even comic books, which makes it a much harder task for parents to monitor their children on a daily basis. Usually, people believe that media violence leads to an increasing antisocial and aggressive behavior from children as well as kids viewing the world as mean and therefore thinking that violence is an acceptable way to settle conflicts. However, in the article “Violent Media Is Good for kids,” comic book writer and author of several books of popular media Gerard Jones argues that violent comic books and video games serve a useful function for kids. He uses different techniques such as using examples from his own childhood and his own son to support his opinion. In his essay, Jones uses different rhetorical devices to convey his argument about how violent media can have positive outcomes on children; however, he does not effectively transmit his message due to the lack of reasoning and evidence that can be found through the essay.
The author decides to use pathos as his main source of rhetorical device by appealing to the audience emotions and feelings. He starts his article by narrating the story of his own childhood and how he was “alone and afraid.” By using these words at the beginning of the paragraph, Jones immediately tries to convey the sadness he suffered during his early teenage years. He later continues by saying how he “withdrew into passivity and loneliness” creating a greater sense of compassion from the audience who is starting to sympathize and feel sorrowful towards the author’s story. He decides to elaborate on his childhood by telling how Hulk was his favorite superhero and that he could relate a lot to him. It’s in this part of the article where Jones’ argument is the strongest, since he understands that almost every single person could relate with the feeling of being lonely and of having a particular “hero” growing up in which find inspiration. The appeal to emotions can also be seen in the next paragraph where he explains how his son was living in a similar situation. He describes his son’s childhood as a ‘Power Ranger to muscle through a social competition in kindergarten”. This metaphor makes him observant of his son’s condition and adds credibility and compassion to his person.
His argument, however, starts to fall off when he uses a quotation from Melanie Moore, Ph.D., in which she explains that “children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they’ve been thought to deny, and to reintegrate these feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood.” Although Moore seems to be a reliable source in child psychology, there is no actual use of statistics that prove her argument. By using this quote Jones fails to use logos efficiently and therefore he doesn’t convey effectively his point to the audience.
Another issue that can be found in this essay is the repetition of concepts that have already been stated by the author himself. In the 11th paragraph he states that “pretending to have superhuman powers helps children conquer the feelings of powerlessness that inevitably come with being so young and small.” Even though he is making a good point, his concept has already been similarly repeated at the end of the 5th paragraph where he talks about people “integrating the scariest, most fervently denied fragments of their psyches into fuller senses of selfhood through fantasies of super human combat and destruction.” The repetition of the word “rage” can also be found during the 12th paragraph, in which he uses the word, however, in an alternative meaning. He states that “children engage the rage they’ve stifled, come to fear it less, and become more capable of utilizing it against life’s challenges.” With this sentence he implies that rage is something positive to experience since it can be used to empower ourselves and it is something worth building a relationship and a bonding with rather that fighting against it.
Gerard Jones continues providing an appeal to emotions by carefully choosing his words. His diction in the 13th paragraph includes words such as “exploding”, “violent”, and phrases such as “only child”, “testing limits”, and “roaring threats.” He is using strong and descriptive words that will leave a mark on the reader’s mind and make them reflect about the intensity of the sentence and the meaning behind it.
An additional misuse of a rhetorical device can be identified in the last paragraph of the essay. Jones decides to conclude his argument by warning about the possible dangers of confusing children’s “natural aggression in the same way the Victorians confused their children about their sexuality.” By using the term “Victorians” he is referencing to the people who lived during the reign of Queen Victoria and who are often associated with prudish and conservative behavior. In this case, by using this historical analogy, the author does not quite correlate the behavior of the Victorians with the children being confused about how to handle their natural aggression. He also does not provide an explanation about how the children are going to suffer from similar consequences creating some type of confusion to the reader.
In conclusion, in his essay Gerard Jones does a quite good job in transmitting the emotions of sorrowfulness and of loneliness that characterized his childhood. His effective use of pathos makes the audience sympathize with him and relate to his problems as well as understanding better his points and his argument. However, Jones lacks the ability to successfully use logos to his advantage by not being enough specific and by not using stats or facts. The repetition of concepts that have been already stated or mentioned is also a downside of his essay, giving the impression that he is trying to use the same concepts in order to get evidence for his argument.
