Rhetoric Analysis: Drunk History

Rhetoric Analysis After analyzing the following videos, I must start by addressing that in my opinion they convey humor in a unique way, not undermining the fact that said videos are taken from real history. As this is my first time watching Drunk History, and the two first videos are from that show. I must say, that I found these videos to be very comical and educational at the same time. One thing they all have in common are words, that are most likely used in a conversational and drunken stupor. They hold sarcasm, but some of them as I will explain, can reach into the emotions of the viewer in a very tactic way. Starting off with the first video that is called, Drunk History: Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks. I have concluded that the mocking of the characters and uses of curse words creates extremely unorganized ideas. Even as the storyteller narrates the dialogues there are several pauses. This in turn, causes the story to not be clear or have a smooth flow. So, I would have to say there is no logos in this video. The video does have a unique storyteller as she appears to be very drunk. As she starts to tell the story I can’t ignore the slur speech that is associated with being inebriated. At that moment the Ethos of the narration becomes doubtful to me. I can …show more content…
This video talks about the election of 1800’s. It also opens up with an inebriated storyteller. He talks about the friendship these two founders of America had, but as they begin to run for office they were forced to attack each other. This would be called slandering or a fallacy of poisoning the well. I can say this video had no logos, since persuasion was not existent. Pathos also is not existent as there is not emotions conveyed to pursue the viewer. When it comes to Ethos, I come to the same conclusion that I had with the first video. The storyteller is drunk and in turn causes his credibility to be doubtful of the accuracies he is