Leila's Rhetorical Outline of Haruki Murakami's "Always on the Side of the Egg" Speech
Purpose: to share his opinions (indirectly) on conflict and overcoming challenges
Audience: readers of his books (and thus sympathetic to him) in Israel and the Middle East
Context: receiving the Jerusalem award despite the fighting taking place in Gaza between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Section 1: Introduction and "Liars"
Purpose: To suggest that Murakami may not be a completely reliable speaker, and to not simply hang on every word he says; to suggest that lies are not all bad and both come from and lead to truths
Appeals: Establishes ethos (through discrediting himself). Pathos (talking about why novelists lie). No logos.
Technique: First sentence strong and controversial, calling himself a liar. Lists other types of liars in society, parallelism. Juxtaposition of lies and truth.
Effectiveness: Somewhat effective. Calling himself a liar right from the start also has the opposite effect of leaving a sense that none of the following speech should be taken seriously. However the uneasiness does set the stage well for the idea of a wronged "system" in power that he presents later.
Section 2: Why come to Gaza?
Purpose: explain his motives not just for coming to Gaza, but general life principles
Appeals: Builds Pathos and Ethos
Technique:
- Uses personal anecdote, when talking about doing against what he is told
- gives a brief description of the situation in Gaza to show his understanding of it.
- Ethos building!! Anaphora when talking about choosing to come to Gaza, puts a lot of emphasis on being an active citizen of the world, building ethos among people from countries who may feel that the world wants nothing to do with them
Effectiveness: Effective in convincing the audience he is on their side, functions very well as an introduction to his next section
Section 3: Not a Political Message, A Personal Message
Purpose: Convince the audience that there is a "system" in place that is intended to function for protection of the people but is currently unable to do so
Effectiveness: Very effective. Uses strong pathos to build a connection with the audience and make them pliable to his ideas.
A. Not a Political Message/ Introduction to Walls and Eggs
Appeals: Pathos, some ethos
Technique:
- Repeats twice that he is not there to deliver a direct political message
- Builds a bridge with the audience by saying how he's delivering a personal message, followed by another of his personal insights into life
- metaphor: "carved into the wall of my mind"
B. Walls and Eggs
Appeals: Pathos
Technique:
- Definition: " 'Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it..."
- Wall=Bombers, tanks, rockets, white phosphorus shells (War, Conflict)
- Egg= Unarmed civilians crushed and burn and shot (by wall)
- This draws a parallel between his saying and the situation in Gaza, an attempt to build more pathos with the qudience
- Definition/Metaphor
- People=Eggs
- Eggs= a "unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell.
- Diction: you and me, us to bring audience closer to him
C. The System
Appeals: Pathos
Technique:
- Juxtaposition- "coldly, efficiently, systematically" followed immediately in the next paragraph with emotionally laden words"dignity of individual soul," "life and death," "love," "make people cry and quake with fear and shake with laughter"
- Personal anecdote about death of father to get sympathy from the audience before presenting a possible controversial idea
- Diction: "We" used to imply it's not just an idea of Murakami's but something that affects everyone
- Flips the argument, from always standing on the side of the "egg," the "weak/defeated" party of things, and says that that "we" is the one that created the system that hurts them now
General Evaluation:
Murakami is a master of manipulating emotion though style and technique. His speech uses very little logos, instead relying on his ideas and the mood he creates beforehand to keep the audience agreeing with him. He uses his ethos as a writer to allow himself greater freedom in what he says, and then uses pathos to make those ideas believable. More logos, while helpful in bringing a grounding sense of "reality" to the speech, wouldn't have been as effective in getting the emotional (and thus memorable) charge the speech as here, because ideas are open to be shaped by the listener.
