Boxing Rhetorical Analysis

555 Words3 Pages
Norman Mailer uses emotional and logical appeals to deliver his opinion on the integrity of the sport of boxing. By using words such as “proud” and discussing the logical implications of a fighter who is able to take more punches than anyone else. By choosing to write the last fives sentences from the perspective of the audience, he brings the reader into the ring and invites them to consider what it would be like to watch a man get beat to death by another for sport. He describes the audience including himself as “hypnotized” because of the beating that was taking place not even ten feet from him. By considering the audience hypnotized by this event, he evokes powerful emotion from both the idea that humanity does not always act on what…show more content…
He uses words that are not wishy-washy, instead firm, on one side of pride or the other. Some such words are “proud” and “particular shame” when describing Paret and “brave” when describing the referee that eventually stopped Griffith from pounding Paret all the way into the ground. By using concrete words that have a firm standing in the reader’s mind, Mailer logically convinces those reading, and who possibly have not formed their own opinions about boxing yet, that the sport itself is one filled to the brim with integrity, even the death of Benny Paret has a proud, fierce air about it. The description of his death is still proving the point of integrity in boxing because it maintains the understanding that Paret is one of the strongest fighters, and that all can be brought down. He continues this understanding that began in the first paragraph with “unusual ability to take a punch” with the phrase describing his death being “he went down more slowly than any fighter had ever gone down, he went down like a large ship which turns on end and slides second by second into its grave.” By keeping Paret as a strong figure throughout the piece, he maintains the integrity of the sport through describing what believes is one of the strongest fighters. He starts his argument for this off in a logical way because it’s almost general knowledge that being able to take a punch is a talent,
Open Document