1 CMS 390P: , Myth, & Rhetoric University of Texas at Austin Fall 2020 /ONLINE

Instructor: Dr. Scott R. Stroud Office: On Zoom/Skype Phone: 512-471-6561 Office Hours: T/Th 12:30-1:30pm Email: [email protected] /scottrstroud (skype) and by appointment (Zoom/Skype) Class Time: Monday 3:30-6:30pm (online) Unique Number: 07559 Classroom: On Zoom Class Website: On Canvas

Course Description: This course engages two important and interrelated areas of study in rhetoric: narrative and myth. This course investigates a range of accounts that have been given concerning narrative’s rhetorical and argumentative powers. Of particular interest to us will be the of narrative argument offered by Walter Fisher in studies, although we will explore accounts of narrative from other disciplines as well. Arguments against narrative’s argumentative employment from philosophical aesthetics will also be considered. In terms of myth, the course will focus primarily on the question of how myth and mythic narrative occur in rhetorical activity. Issues to be explored include the psychological foundations of myths (particularly Jungian accounts), how mythic criticism might proceed, as well as critiques of mythic criticism from a variety of disciplines.

A note about our classroom environment. Since this is a seminar, I will run this class as a discussion among equals as much as I can. I will try to make it fun, engaging, and lighthearted. But I will treat you as “argumentative equals.” While we may not be total equals in terms of of the course subject matter, we are equals in being able to assert, challenge, and defend arguments. What this practically means is that I will often try to argue, refute, and confound your arguments (and asserted claims) as I would do to an academic colleague in a professional discussion. Do not take this personally. One does not learn boxing or pottery making by staring at a chalkboard, and one will only become better at making arguments though the experience of arguing. Some of our discussions will be aimed at understanding a text and its arguments. But other significant parts of our discussion will be aimed at challenging, appropriating, or evaluating those arguments. I will often help you by playing devil’s advocate for the text/author/position in question, even if I do not ultimately find that argument persuasive. This is done simply to get the most out of our engagement with primary sources that are all too easy to dismiss because of their temporal distance, our disciplinary habits, and so forth. This is also done to make you better at scholarly argument.

Required Texts: Walter R. Fisher, Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action (University of South Carolina Press, 1989), ISBN-10: 0872496244.

Janice Hocker Rushing & Thomas S. Frentz, Projecting the Shadow: The Cyborg Hero in American Film (Chicago, 1995), ISBN-10: 0226731677.

Gary Saul Morson, Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time (Yale University Press, 1996), ISBN- 10: 0300068751. (In reader)

Laurie L. Patton & Wendy Doniger (eds.), Myth and Method (University of Virginia Press, 1996), ISBN- 10: 0813916577. (In reader)

2 Alan Dundes (ed.), Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth (University of California Press, 1984), ISBN-10: 0520051920. (In reader)

All other readings will be in our Course Reader (available at Jenn’s Copy across from CMA; also on canvas).

Recommended Texts: Wendy Doniger, The Implied Spider: Politics and Theology in Myth (Columbia University Press, 1998), ISBN-10: 0231111711.

William G. Doty, Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals, 2nd edition (University Alabama Press, 2000), ISBN-10: 0817310061.

Robert A. Segal (ed.), Jung on Mythology (Princeton, 1998), ISNB-10: 0691017360.

Assignments: Participation 25% Reading Response Papers 15% Discussion Presentations 10% Research Paper Proposal 5% Research Paper 45%

Grading: 93-100% = A 87-89% = B+ 77-79% = C+ 67-69% = D+ 59 and below = F 90-92% = A- 83-86% = B 73-76% = C 63-66% = D 80-82% = B- 70-72% = C- 60-62% = D-

Assignment Descriptions: This class is a seminar. My observations of your role in the classroom community will constitute your participation grade. Please do not use cell phones or laptops for non-course related uses during class (so, no facebooking, email checking, texting, or chatting).

For two class sessions, please prepare a reading response paper. These should be 2-3 pages in length. Your response paper can be your critical response to any part of the assigned reading(s) for that class. Another way to think of these would be as chances to argumentatively connect a topic in the reading to some other issue of interest to you. I will evaluate these papers based upon their engagement with substantive points in the reading, as well as the depth of critical thought displayed. What we don’t want to do on these papers, say, is to link the assigned reading to a personal experience you’ve had, to write about our emotional reaction to this point, etc. Argue something. Also, don’t burn up all your space by throwing in quotations or introductions. Try to argue something interesting or important. Also, keep the sort of formal voice you would have in an academic piece—these are not article length pieces, but the sort of critical thinking and argument should be of the same cloth.

Over the course of the semester, each student will be a “discussion leader” for one session. There will be (at most) one student discussion leader per session. Instead, you will lead a 45 minute discussion presentation. You will choose some subset of the assigned readings for that day, present your thoughts on it, and lead a discussion about it. This will involve you (1) presenting some main points of the reading(s) and then (2) critically analyzing them. Please bring copies of some sort of outline or summary of your presentation for your classmates. It is fine if you want to link the reading(s) in question to larger concerns in rhetoric or to other class readings. Also be prepared to stimulate class discussion for a while. We will start the process of picking days for presentations in the first class session.

3 Each student will write a research paper (15-25 pages of text) dealing with a significant issue relating to course content. This paper must include research outside of assigned course materials and must involve critical reflection and argument. You must inform me (in a 2 page document) of your proposed topic for feedback on its suitability. This is your chance to further explore topics broached in class, or to link discussed ideas in myth or narrative to your own areas of study. More details concerning this assignment will follow in class. It would be a good idea to share drafts of your paper with your classmates to get their feedback, although I will not require this. Ideally, your final paper should be ready for submission to a regional or national conference in communication studies, rhetorical studies, or your field.

Notes to Syllabus: -The syllabus and readings are subject to change with email notice. Please watch your email associated with Canvas for any notifications.

-Assignments must meet the due dates or be subject to a 20% penalty if turned in within a week (after that, a zero must be recorded). Do not feed habits of procrastination, they will turn on you.

-The university policy on plagiarism will be strictly enforced. Using the text or ideas of someone else in your papers or presentations without clearly citing them is plagiarism, and significant cases will result in an “F” for the course (less significant cases will result in an “F”/0% on the assignment). Using written work submitted in other courses is also not allowed.

Modality of Instruction: This course will be fully online. Course sessions will be synchronous unless otherwise noted by me; this means you are to be present and online via the Zoom link I provide on Canvas at during the allotted course time. Be attentive in class, ask questions when needed (through voice or chat), offer comments and thoughts on discussion topics. You must be familiar with Zoom and Canvas to succeed in this course; if you are not, please contact Moody College’s tech support team to address your problems with the applications.

Disability Statement: Students with disabilities who require special accommodations need to get a letter that documents the disability from the Services for Students with Disabilities area of the Office of the Dean of Students (471-6259 voice or 471-4641 TTY for users who are deaf or hard of hearing). This letter should be presented to the instructor in each course at the beginning of the semester and accommodations needed should be discussed at that time. Five business days before an exam the student should remind the instructor of any testing accommodations that will be needed.

Canvas: This course uses Canvas, a Web-based course management system in which a password-protected site is created for each course. Canvas is available at http://courses.utexas.edu. I will use Canvas to distribute handouts, as well as to post any additional information or comments.

Plagiarism Detection Software:

All assignments in this course will be processed by TurnItIn, a tool that compares submitted material to an archived database of published work to check for potential plagiarism. Other methods may also be used to determine if a paper is the student’s original work. Regardless of the results of any TurnItIn submission, the faculty member will make the final determination as to whether or not a paper has been plagiarized.

Important Safety Information: 4 If you have concerns about the safety or behavior of fellow students, TAs or Professors, call BCAL (the Behavior Concerns Advice Line): 512-232-5050. Your call can be anonymous. If something doesn’t feel right – it probably isn’t. Trust your instincts and share your concerns.

Title IX Reporting: Title IX is a federal law that protects against sex and gender based discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, dating/domestic violence and stalking at federally funded educational institutions. UT Austin is committed to fostering a learning and working environment free from discrimination in all its forms. When sexual misconduct occurs in our community, the university can: 1. Intervene to prevent harmful behavior from continuing or escalating. 2. Provide support and remedies to students and employees who have experienced harm or have become involved in a Title IX investigation. 3. Investigate and discipline violations of the university’s relevant policies.

Faculty members and certain staff members are considered “Responsible Employees” or “Mandatory Reporters,” which means that they are required to report violations of Title IX to the Title IX Coordinator. I am a Responsible Employee and must report any Title IX related incidents that are disclosed in writing, discussion, or one-on-one. Before talking with me, or with any faculty or staff member about a Title IX related incident, be sure to ask whether they are a responsible employee. If you want to speak with someone for support or remedies without making an official report to the university, email [email protected] For more information about reporting options and resources, visit titleix.utexas.edu or contact the Title IX Office at [email protected].

Class Recordings: Class recordings are reserved only for students in this class for educational purposes and are protected under FERPA. The recordings should not be shared outside the class in any form. Violation of this restriction by a student could lead to Student Misconduct proceedings.

COVID Caveats: To help keep everyone at UT and in our community safe, it is critical that students report COVID-19 symptoms and testing, regardless of test results, to University Health Services, and faculty and staff report to the HealthPoint Occupational Health Program (OHP) as soon as possible. Please see this link to understand what needs to be reported. In addition, to help understand what to do if a fellow student in the class (or the instructor or TA) tests positive for COVID, see this University Health Services link.

5 Course Calendar The listed readings are subject to change with adequate notice.

(1) August 31 Introduction to Narrative

Marie-Laure Ryan, “Toward a Definition of Narrative,” D. Herman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Narrative (Cambridge, 2007).

Noël Carroll, “On the Narrative Connection,” W. Van Peer & S. Chatman (eds.), New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective (SUNY, 2001).

James Phelan, “Rhetoric/ethics,” D. Herman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Narrative (Cambridge, 2007).

Crispin Sartwell, “Telos and Torture,” End of Story: Toward an Annihilation of Language and (SUNY, 2000).

James W. Polichak & Richard J. Gerrig, “‘Get Up and Win!’ Participatory Responses to Narrative,” M.C. Green, J.J. Strange, & T.C. Brock (eds.), Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations (LEA, 2002).

Jeffrey J. Strange, “How Fictional Tales Wag Real-World Beliefs,” M.C. Green, J.J. Strange, & T.C. Brock (eds.), Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations (LEA, 2002). OPTIONAL

Richard J. Gerrig, “Perspective as Participation,” W. Van Peer & S. Chatman (eds.), New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective (SUNY, 2001). OPTIONAL

Keith Oatley, “Emotions and the Story Worlds of Fiction,” M.C. Green, J.J. Strange, & T.C. Brock (eds.), Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations (LEA, 2002). OPTIONAL

(2) September 7 - Labor Day – No Class

(3) September 14 Philosophical Readings of Narrative Functioning

Jürgen Habermas, “Philosophy and Science as Literature?” Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays (MIT Press, 1996).

Peter Lamarque & Stein Haugom Olsen, “The Propositional Theory of Literary Truth,” Truth, Fiction, and Literature (Clarendon Press, 1994), Chp 13.

Peter Lamarque & Stein Haugom Olsen, “Literature as Philosophy,” Truth, Fiction, and Literature (Clarendon Press, 1994), Chp 15.

Noël Carroll, “The Wheel of Virtue: Art, Literature, and Moral Knowledge,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60:1, 2002.

Peter Kivy, “The Laboratory of Fictional Truth,” Philosophies of Arts (Cambridge University Press, 1997), Chp 5.

6 Wayne C. Booth, “Implied Authors as Friends and Pretenders,” The Company We Keep (University of California Press, 1988), Chp 6.

Jerrold Levinson, “Messages in Art,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:2, 1995: 184-198. OPTIONAL

Gregory Currie, “The Moral Psychology of Fiction,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:2, 1995: 250- 259. OPTIONAL

Peter Lamarque, “Tragedy and Moral Value,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73:2, 1995: 239-249. OPTIONAL

(4) September 21 The Narrative : Walter Fisher’s Account

Walter R. Fisher, Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action (University of South Carolina Press, 1989). (read all chapters except 2 and 4)

(5) September 28 The Narrative Paradigm: Critics & Problems

Barbara Warnick, “The Narrative Paradigm: Another Story,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73, 1987: 172- 182.

Robert C. Rowland, “Narrative: Mode of Discourse or Paradigm?” Communication Monographs 54, 1987: 264-75.

Robert C. Rowland, “On Limiting the Narrative Paradigm,.” Communication Monographs 56, 1989: 39-54.

Walter R. Fisher, “Clarifying the Narrative Paradigm,” Communication Monographs 56, 1989: 55-58.

Noël Carroll, “Consequentialism, Propositionalism, and Identificationism,” A Philosophy of Mass Art (Clarendon Press, 1998).

Scott R. Stroud, “Simulation, Subjective Knowledge, and the Cognitive Value of Literary Narrative,” Journal of Aesthetic Education, 42 (3), 2008: 19-41.

Peter Lamarque, “On Not Expecting Too Much from Narrative,” Mind & Language 19 (4), 2004: 393-408. OPTIONAL

Lisa M. Gring-Pemble, “‘Are We Going to Now Govern By Anecdote?’: Rhetorical Constructions of Welfare Recipients in Congressional Hearings, Debates, and Legislation, 1992-1996,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 87 (4), 2001: 341-365. OPTIONAL

(5) October 5 The Narrative Paradigm: Applications & Defenses

William G. Kirkwood, “ and Self-Confrontation,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 69, 1983: 58-74.

William G. Kirkwood, “Parables as Metaphors and Examples,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 71, 1985: 422- 440.

7 William G. Kirkwood, “Narrative and the Rhetoric of Possibility,” Communication Monographs 59, 1992: 30-47.

Scott R. Stroud, “Multivalent : Extending the Narrative Paradigm with Insights from Ancient Indian Philosophical Texts,” Western Journal of Communication 66 (3), 2002: 369-393.

Scott R. Stroud, “Narrative as Argument in Indian Philosophy: The Astāvakra Gītā as Multivalent Narrative,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 37 (1), 2004: 42-71.

Mads Qvortrup & Esben Bjerggaard Nielsen, Dwelling Narratively: Exploring Heideggerian Perspectives in the Narrative Paradigm,” Philosophy & Rhetoric, 52 (2), 2019: 142-162.

Shari Hoppin, Applying the Narrative Paradigm to the Vaccine Debates,” American Communication Journal, 18 (2), 2016: 45-55.

Leah Ceccarelli, “The Polysemic Facepalm: Fauci as Rhetorically Savvy Scientist Citizen,” Philosophy & Rhetoric, 53 (3), 2020: 239-245.

Thomas A. Hollihan & Patricia Riley, “The Rhetorical Power of a Compelling Story: A Critique of a ‘Toughlove’ Parental Support Group,” Communication Quarterly 35 (1), 1987: 13-25. OPTIONAL

E. James Baesler, “Construction and Test of an Empirical Measure for Narrative Coherence and Fidelity,” Communication Reports 8 (2), 1995: 97-101. OPTIONAL

Ronald H. Carpenter, “Admiral Mahan, ‘Narrative Fidelity,’ and the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72, 1986: 290-305. OPTIONAL

(6) October 12 Narrative Theory & Mythic Narratives

Kevin McClure, “Resurrecting the Narrative Paradigm: Identification and the Case of Young Earth Creationism,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 39 (2), 2009: 189-211.

John Lynch, “’Prepare to Believe’: The Creation Museum as Embodied Conversion Narrative,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 16 (1), 2013: 1-28.

Kathleen Glenister Roberts, “Texturing the Narrative Paradigm: Folklore and Communication,” Communication Quarterly 52 (2), 2004: 129-142.

William F. Lewis, “Telling America’s Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73, 1987: 280-302.

Susan K. Opt, “Continuity and Change in Storytelling about Artificial Intelligence: Extending the Narrative Paradigm,” Communication Quarterly 36 (4), 1988: 298-310.

John M. Allison, Jr., “Narrative and Time: A Phenomenological Reconsideration,” Text & Performance Quarterly 14, 1994: 108-125.

Robert C. Rowland & David A. Frank, “Mythic Rhetoric and Rectification in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” Communication Studies 62 (1), 2011: 41-57. OPTIONAL

8 Kip Redick & Lori Underwood, “Rationality and Narrative: A Relationship of Priority,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 40 (4), 2007: 394-405. OPTIONAL

Stephanie Kelley-Romano, “Mythmaking in Alien Abduction Narratives,” Communication Quarterly 54 (3), 2006: 383-406. OPTIONAL

(7) October 19 Narrative Structure & the Sense of Time

Gary Saul Morson, Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time (Yale University Press, 1996). Read chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, and conclusion.

(8) October 26 Myth: Definitions and Methods

William Bascom, “The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives,” in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth (University of California Press, 1984).

Lauri Honko, “The Problem of Defining Myth,” in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth (University of California Press, 1984).

Robert A. Segal, “Does Myth have a Future?” in Myth and Method (University of Virginia Press, 1996).

Benjamin Caleb Ray, “The Gilgamesh Epic: Myth and Meaning,” in Myth and Method (University of Virginia Press, 1996).

Bruce Lincoln, “Mythic Narrative and Cultural Diversity in American Society,” in Myth and Method (University of Virginia Press, 1996). OPTIONAL

Raffaele Pettazzoni, “The Truth of Myth,” in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth (University of California Press, 1984). OPTIONAL

(9) November 2 C. G. Jung on Myth: Theory

Robert A. Segal (ed.), Jung on Mythology (Princeton, 1998), pp. 54-60; Chps 3, 5.

Renaldo J. Maduro & Joseph B. Wheelwright, “Archetype and Archetypal Image,” in R. P. Sugg, Jungian Literary Criticism (Northwestern, 1992).

Andrew Samuels, Bani Shorter, & Fred Plaut, “Archetype, Myth, Numinosum,” in R. P. Sugg, Jungian Literary Criticism (Northwestern, 1992).

Janice Hocker Rushing & Thomas S. Frentz, “Integrating Ideology and Archetype in Rhetorical Criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 77, 1991: 385-406 .

Janice Hocker Rushing & Thomas S. Frentz, Projecting the Shadow: The Cyborg Hero in American Film (Chicago, 1995), Chps 1-2.

Frieda Fordham, “Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious,” An Introduction to Jung’s Psychology (Penguin, 1966). OPTIONAL

9

(10) November 9 C. G. Jung on Myth: Critical Application

Janice Hocker Rushing & Thomas S. Frentz, Projecting the Shadow: The Cyborg Hero in American Film (Chicago, 1995), Chp 3-Conclusion.

Evelyn J. Hinz & John J. Teunissen, “ and the Humanities: The Archetypal Approach,” in R. P. Sugg, Jungian Literary Criticism (Northwestern, 1992).

Karen Elias-Button, “Journey into an Archetype: The Dark Mother in Contemporary Women’s Poetry,” in R. P. Sugg, Jungian Literary Criticism (Northwestern, 1992).

Robert E. Terrill, “Spectacular Repression: Sanitizing the Batman,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 17, 2000: 493-509.

David Payne, “The Wizard of Oz: Therapeutic Rhetoric in a Contemporary Media Ritual,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 75, 1989: 25-39. OPTIONAL

Robert A. Davies, James M. Farrell, Steven S. Matthews, “The Dream World of Film: A Jungian Perspective on Cinematic Communication,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 46, 1982: 326-343. OPTIONAL

William Willeford, “Feeling, Imagination, and the Self,” “The Fool and His Sceptre,” in R. P. Sugg, Jungian Literary Criticism (Northwestern, 1992). OPTIONAL.

Albert Gelpi, “Two Ways of Spelling it Out: An Archetypal-Feminist Reading of H.D.’s Trilogy and Adrienne Rich’s Sources,” in R. P. Sugg, Jungian Literary Criticism (Northwestern, 1992). OPTIONAL

Joshua Gunn & Thomas Frentz, “The Da Vinci Code as Alchemical Rhetoric,” Western Journal of Communication 72, 2008: 213-238. OPTIONAL

(11) November 16 Joseph Campbell & Mythic Criticism

Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (Princeton, 1973), selections.

Scott R. Stroud, “Technology and Mythic Narrative: The Matrix as Technological Hero-Quest,” Western Journal of Communication 65, 2001: 416-441.

Thomas S. Frentz & Janice Hocker Rushing, “’Mother Isn’t Quite Herself Today’: Myth and Spectacle in The Matrix,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 19, 2002: 64-85.

Thomas Rosteck & Thomas S. Frentz, “Myth and Multiple Readings in Environmental Rhetoric: The Case of An Inconvenient Truth,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95, 2009: 1-19.

Robert A. Segal, “Joseph Campbell’s Theory of Myth,” in Myth and Method (University of Virginia Press, 1996).

Janice Hocker Rushing & Thomas S. Frentz, “Singing Over the Bones: James Cameron’s Titanic,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 17, 2000: 1-27. OPTIONAL

10 (12) November 23 Challenges to Mythic Criticism

Robert C. Rowland, “On Mythic Criticism,” Communication Studies 41, 1990: 101-116.

Martha Solomon, “Responding to Rowland’s Myth or In Defense of Pluralism—A Reply to Rowland,” Communication Studies 41, 1990: 117-120.

Michael Osborn, “In Defense of Broad Mythic Criticism—A Reply to Rowland,” Communication Studies 41, 1990: 121-127.

Barry Brummett, “How to Propose a Discourse—A Reply to Rowland,” Communication Studies 41, 1990: 128-135.

Janice Hocker Rushing, “On Saving Mythic Criticism—A Reply to Rowland,” Communication Studies 41, 1990: 135-149.

Robert C. Rowland, “On a Limited Approach to Mythic Criticism—Rowland’s Rejoinder,” Communication Studies 41, 1990: 150-160.

“On Mythic Criticism: The Conversation Continues,” Communication Studies 41, 1990: 278- 298.

Wendy Doniger, “Minimyths and Maximyths and Political Points of View,” in Myth and Method (University of Virginia Press, 1996).

Alan Dundes, “Madness in Method, plus a Plea for Projective Inversion in Myth,” in Myth and Method (University of Virginia Press, 1996).

David Sutton, “On Mythic Criticism: A Proposed Compromise,” Communication Reports 10, 1997: 211-217. OPTIONAL

**Research paper proposal due November 26 by 5pm via email**

(13) November 30 The American Monomyth

John Shelton Lawrence & Robert Jewett, The Myth of the American Superhero (William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), selections.

Janice Hocker Rushing, “The Rhetoric of the American Western Myth,” Communication Monographs 50, 1983: 14-32.

Scott R. Stroud, “Kurukshetra and the O.K. Corral: Myth, Method, and Narrative in Light of Wyatt Earp and the Mahabharat,” International Journal of Communication 18, 2008: 153-174.

Janice Hocker Rushing, “Mythic Evolution of ‘The New Frontier’ in Mass Mediated Rhetoric,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 3, 1986: 265-296.

(14) December 7 Political & Philosophical Uses of Mythic Narrative

11 Michael McGuire, “Mythic Rhetoric in Mein Kampf: A Structuralist Critique,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 63, 1977: 1-13.

Thomas S. Frentz, “Memory, Myth, and Rhetoric in ’s Phaedrus,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 36, 2006: 243-262.

Janice Hocker Rushing, Ronald Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ Address: Mythic Containment of Technical Reasoning,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72, 1986: 415-433.

Bart Beaty, “The Fighting Civil Servant: Making Sense of the Canadian Superhero,” American Review of Canadian Studies 36, 2006: 427-439.

Mark West & Chris Carey, “(Re)Enacting Frontier Justice: The Bush Administration’s Tactical Narration of the Old West Fantasy after September 11,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 92, 2006: 379-412. OPTIONAL

**Final Papers due ___ by _____ via email**