Rhetorical Analysis Of Nerds By David Fridman

Fridman develops his argument through the careful cultivation of his paragraphs. He shifted his style and tone throughout the piece in order to convey his evolving sentiment to the reader. As he plowed onward throughout the piece, his tone grew agitated, and his resolve became more firm. He maintained a few key tactics that were applied in the beginning to preserve the unity of the piece, but used his paragraph variation to create contrast and provoke thought.

In paragraphs 1-4 Fridman established the purpose of the piece through his biased assessment of the “nerd” situation in America. He delivered this with a peeved--almost resigned--tone that highlighted the grievousness of their predicament. Statements like, “...a society that only has derogatory terms like nerd and geek for the intellectually curious and academically serious,” were made to make the “nerds and geeks” seem like the innocent prey, getting picked on by the world. This tactic established the way that nerds are perceived, and cause the audience to feel empathetic towards Fridman’s cause. He then continues on to discuss all the instances in which the academically inclined folk are ostracized in polite society. Throughout all of this, Fridman keeps his tone obviously biased, but still composed. This

allows for the background information to become ingrained before moving into his main argument.
The next four paragraphs are the meat and potatoes of the piece, presenting the author’s main points with a passionate tone.

These paragraphs began with a strong, “Enough is enough.” that alerted the reader to the austere nature of the rest of the article. The dominant message throughout the latter half of the piece is centered around “nerds” sticking up for themselves. Without giving any explanations on how to do so, Fridman continues to berate America’s academic situation with increasing vigor and intensity in an attempt to garner support from the reader. He concludes with a series of thought-provoking questions that instill within the reader, a pinch of doubt over the future of academic

America.
In order to maintain cohesion, Fridman chose a few themes to bring forth in both portions of his piece. He consistently touches on the discrepancy between how athletes and “nerds” are received by their peers. Athletes, he claims, “are idolised,” while “nerds” are “Ostracized for their intelligence, and refusal to conform to society’s anti-intellectual values...” This notion is brought back up in the seventh paragraph with, “...average professional basketball players are much more respected and better paid than faculty members of the best universities.” Another repetitive theme was the embracing of stereotypes. The article was chock full of references like “...typical parents are ashamed of their daughter studying mathematics instead of going dancing...” making it seem as though being smart is taboo. Or that the only alternative to reading books and making model airplanes is to party and play football. These ideals are repeated by the author in order to emphasize and promote his concept.
Overall, both sections of the piece reflected the author’s pro-nerd message. They expressed the tone that he thought would best relay his point, both resigned angst in the beginning, and worked up passion at the end. The distinction between paragraphs made the reading more interesting and created the contrast that was needed to further his belief, while still producing a compelling and cohesive piece.