My understanding of these texts were very minimal. The comic reading when I first started, I thought it was going to explain what rehoric actually was because it said that we misinterpret it now days. But as it went further it just went off an a tangent about old greek writers that I assume played apart in keeping Rhetoric alive(I mean thats kind of what I was able to grasp). As well as a few being considered the grand fathers of it all for actually practicing and promoting it. From what I could understand, I could say that rhetoric is the way we talk and the way that we think. It’s Ain components were ethos, pathos, and logos. All being different ways to appeal to an argument(I think) or even outside of arguments, just conveying thoughts to the world in general.
The next lengthier text was much more vigorous. I understood the biggest point which revolved around analyzing rhetoric in modern technological forms. Since our media sources are ever changing and expanding. I was tripped up over the different examples of how we could analyze it because they were very content full. But I did have a higher understanding for the visual appeal in media since I actually analyzed websites I would go on based on how they looked and how much effort the creator put in to please my eyes. I did this without even thinking about it too which I found to be funny. Idid realize that I was always exposed to hybridity in the media world especially as the years gone by, I can’t remember the last time I’ve visited a dull website with just words and no pictures or navigational hyperlinks. Overall rhetoric has more of an in-depth and relatable position in current media that usually goes unnoticed, so teachers such as Ms. Bryce-Evans can now open our eyes to how we can better understand the concept in our everyday lives.
.
