Rhetorics...

In your opinion, what do you think is the most effective (pathos, logos, or ethos) when writing a paper? In your "Into the Wild" and "American Literature" essays did you focus more on one rhetoric, or did you balance all three? If so why?

I do not think that any of them are more effective than another. If anything, I'd say pathos and logos are equally effective and ethos is a little less effective than both. No one method should be used alone. I think a solid piece of writing uses at least two methods and intertwines them. I also would like to add that Rachel makes a good point. Logos is important. Logos alone isn't sufficient because then you would just be restating facts that the reader could get elsewhere. Logos works well with pathos. Logos works well with ethos. In both cases, the third rhetoric is not necessary, but could add appeal.

In the two essays we've written so far, I would say that I use a fairly equal amount of pathos and logos. I find it useful to quote or paraphrase sources so when I explain my stance on an argument, the reader understands what I am trying to get across. In addition, I find pathos to come out naturally when I write. As for ethos, I normally do not take into consideration my credibility on an argument. In both of these essays, my credibility would be that the reader has to assume that I've read or have some sort of general knowledge about the novels I wrote about. I did not, however, state that I am credible because I am reading the book and have done "research" on them. I think I omitted the usage of ethos in my writing because both essays were somewhat opinionated. My opinion of a novel or character is subjective and I do not think it is actually all that credible.