Online Book Reader

Home Category

Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [86]

By Root 10353 0
power, Rudd again dodges the compliment.

O’Brien: But I would have to think by now that it’s reaching critical mass, so many successful movies you must be getting the star treatment now. I bet you’re treated like—

Rudd: I met Bruce Springsteen. I met him but it wasn’t a … I snuck backstage at a Police concert and he was there.

Rudd’s move, which allows him to segue into a selfdeprecating anecdote about his encounter with Bruce Springsteen, represents an effort to resist the frame that O’Brien attempts to establish. Instead of accepting the frame that situates Rudd as a star and O’Brien as an average fan, Rudd strategically reframes the conversation by invoking a third party, a star whom both O’Brien and Rudd admire. Now, the conversation is not taking place between a “big star” and his fan, but rather between two fans.

[The writer sets up and queries binaries:] To help understand Rudd’s move, we can use Tannen’s conversational categories of “report-talk” and “rapport-talk,” the former being a way of “exhibiting knowledge and skill” and the latter being a way of “establishing connections” by “displaying similarities and matching experiences” (Understand 77). While men are generally associated with report talk rather than rapport talk, the two categories are not necessarily gender exclusive. Humility, which often takes the form of self-deprecation, can help to remove asymmetry from a conversation. Such a move allows the men to capitalize on their similarities rather than emphasize their differences. We see Rudd do just that by transforming his conversational role from that of the star to that of the fan, a fan that must sneak backstage to meet his musical idols, just like the proverbial rest of us.

[The writer uses her lens to reformulate binaries and uncover assumptions:] If the goal of a conversation is to achieve a sense of equality between speakers, one speaker reinforcing the other’s self-deprecation may appear to be detrimental to a relationship. Surely, if one makes a comment that he or she is not funny enough, not smart enough, or not brave enough, it is only polite for the other speaker to contradict this statement. However, when the conversation is between men, such a negation would likely be interpreted as sympathy, and may actually undermine rapport. According to Tannen, “Showing elaborate concern for others’ feelings frames you as the social worker who has it all together, and them as your patients” (Understand 173). Sympathy or pity, as a result, creates a conversational hierarchy. The sympathizer is in a superior position; he is the one with answers while the other man is the one with the problems.

The men conversing on late night talk shows, rather than offering sympathy on hearing another man’s self-deprecating anecdote, frequently endorse and even augment the other’s selfdeprecation. Take, for example, Rudd’s story about a wedding he attended, paying special attention to O’Brien’s responses.

Rudd: I had a horrible one happen a few years ago where I actually got, um, thrown out of a wedding.

O’Brien: You got thrown out of a wedding?

Rudd: Yeah.

O’Brien: Did you know the people well, I mean these were friends of yours?

Rudd: Yeah, um—

O’Brien: And they threw you out?

Rudd goes on to describe a slightly embarrassing but very humorous video that he made for the bride and groom, with the conversation continuing as follows:

O’Brien: But you didn’t think—you didn’t know they were gonna show it at the wedding? And so all these people are there, hundreds of people?

Rudd: Well yeah…and uh, uh I’m not even gonna…yeah.

O’Brien: And what happened?

Rudd: Well I—she like, you know—people got kind of freaked out and the bride ran out. I mean it’s not the way you imagine your wedding day—

O’Brien: The bride ran away?! That’s terrible!

Rudd: I felt horrible.

O’Brien does nothing to soothe Rudd’s worries about Rudd’s disastrous experience; he urges his guest to divulge all the painful details and seems to relish Rudd’s embarrassment. But then, Rudd’s purpose was probably not to earn sympathy. O’Brien supported

Return Main Page Previous Page Next Page

®Online Book Reader