How to Analyze the Rhetoric of
Satire
Claims
• Are the claims believable? Are they
exaggerated?
– In my essay “Setting the Expectations,” I ridicule
the educational system by suggesting that we fault
teachers for not setting thousands of clear
expectations. This claim is clearly ridiculous and
tongue-in-cheek
– In “A Modest Proposal,” Jonathan Swift advocates
eating the young as a solution to hunger problems
caused by poverty.
Evidence
• Is the evidence biased? Does it have a “spin”
to it? Is it even credible?
– Colbert refers to Bush’s 36 % percent approval
rating as a sign that “67 % approve of the job he’s
not doing.”
– In my article, I use mock interviews as evidence.
Each “interviewee” provides a ludicrous
explanation for the Columbine tragedy, blaming
themselves and the educational system, but never
the actual killers.
Diction
• Look for loaded diction—words with heavily
positive or negative connotations that are
clearly intended to persuade.
– Claims of “evil” or “goodness” and similar terms
suggest conscious exaggeration and verbal irony.
– Check for bias—are the connotations mostly
positive or mostly negative?
Syntax
• Short sentence structures cause the speaker (his
or her persona, in actuality) to often appear
thoughtless or simple-minded.
– Conversely, these types of sentences can, depending
on the piece, cause the speaker (persona) to seem
straightforward and truthful.
• Lengthy sentences either:
– Cause the speaker to seem thoughtful and considerate
OR
Confusing, overly academic, and pedantic
Imagery and Details
• Does the speaker attempt to evoke pathos
through sensory details and description?
• Is the imagery humorous or exaggerated?
– Colbert describes “drinking crude oil out of Keith
Olberman’s skull” in Dowd’s preface to his column.
This is a highly exaggerated image.
Rhetorical Appeals
• Satire is basically a logical argument, because
we are supposed to disagree with the
ridiculousness of the idea under scrutiny.
• However, the logic often masquerades as
pathos
– In my essay I use the fake interviews to ostensibly
cause the reader to feel sorry for the Columbine
killers and angry with the teachers and faculty.
Jargon and Technical Language
• Is there a heavy use of highly specific
terminology?
– Terminology can be a clue as to who or what is the
target—think “who uses these terms in reality?”
– I repeat “expectations” ad nauseum. It’s a jargony
educational term.
– Colbert coins mock terms like “truthiness” and
“factinista” in his White House Press Corps
speech.
Persona
• Determine whether or not the speaker is taking
on a persona
– Satirists often assume the personality and viewpoint
opposite their own.
– Stephen Colbert takes the role of a highly conservative
journalist to ridicule biased journalism, particularly
right-wing biased journalism.
– In my essay, I take the viewpoint of a journalist who
advocates setting thousands of excessively obvious,
overly specific expectations that no faculty or student
would even need.
– Swift certainly does not support eating children.
Look For Symbolic Representations
FROM THE INTRO TO The Simpsons:
– Bart writing on the blackboard: Public education
– Bart on his skateboard: The riddles of childhood
– Homer leaving and driving home from work: Plight of
the working man
– Marge at the supermarket checkout: Consumerism
(Note: Maggie costs $847.63)
– Lisa playing the saxophone: Restrictions of public
education and free thought
– The family racing for the couch in front of the
television: Impact of television on the modern family
Tone
• What is the tone of the piece?
– Use a tone word list for help (there’s one on my
website—put it in your binder!)
– Satire is usually critical in some way—look for
tone words that indicate this.
Finally…
• Decide who/what is being mocked/ridiculed
– A person, type of person, and/or idea or viewpoint is
the target
– Specify who or what is being targeted and for what
reasons.
– Link the previous elements (diction, etc. ) to the
argument—how does the satirist (speaker or writer)
create the humor and ridicule?
– Ex. “Stephen Colbert demonstrates the bias and
foolish partisanship of news media pundits by
assuming a hyperbolically conservative persona.”