Rhetorical Analysis Of Natural Born Killers By Grisham

1.) Grisham tells us that two youngsters killed 2 unrelated people after they watched the film, Natural Born Killers, and learned the violent behavior showed in the film and commit crimes afterwards. And he comes to conclusion that this kind of violent movies that will cause bad effects among young people should be not allowed to made. The detail he provides is that nothing in the two perpetrator’s past indicated violent propensities. Stone’s essay is the response to Grisham’s indict. His central idea is that the movies should not be blamed as reasons people commit crime. The details he provides are that: There are many related factor involved if people are guilty, such as their upbringing, parents, schools, and peers, but not films; Teenagers spend more time on watching TV, which also include violent depictions and have effects on teenagers, so TV should have more responsibility on the crime than Natural Born Killers does.
2.)

When reading his essay, I can infer his attitude that shows great sympathy for the victims who are totally unrelated to the perpetrators, and concerns about the youth who are easily affected by films, and is very angry about the violent films that show unhealthy content to the audience. Grisham’s argument style is rhetoric, and he tells a story completely in the beginning and then gives his opinion following. Using this method, he digs out the important reason that cause these 2 youths commit crime to unrelated people, and make his conclusion more acceptable and persuasive. Stone’s tone is very disagreeable and retort. When reading, I can infer his attitude that reckon Grisham’s statement unscientific and ridiculous. He uses logical argument style. He writes this essay as a response to Grisham’s, and refutes Grisham’s statement one by one, and states clearly that films are not the reason why people commit