The Message Inside the Shell; Cracking Open the Egg

Rhetorical Analysis of Haruki Murakami's Speech; "Always on the Side of the Egg"

Purpose: To avoid taking sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict, while delivering his own subtle message to the people. To accept his literary prize but simultaneously give a warning to the people of Israel and beyond that being on the side of the "egg" (i.e. the people) is the rightful place to be when faced by the demands of the "wall" (i.e. the system.)

Audience: A multi-national group of writers, artists, and thinkers at the Jerusalem Prize Awards Ceremony. All very intelligent and worldly people- who are likely to side with Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Context: Although under threat of the boycott of his books by people in Japan and elsewhere, Murakami decides to attend the awards ceremony and accept the Jerusalem prize. The host country (Israel) is embroiled in a controversial and frequently tragic war with Palestine- with both sides being subject to frequent bombings and violent incidents.


Section 1: Ethos- Don't Trust Me, But Trust Me Today

Purpose: To convince the audience that he -as well as all novelists, and general people in positions of power- are not to be trusted. No one person can lead a whole people in the direction of right or wrong, nor should they.
Appeals: Murakami mainly utilizes a direct form of ethos, establishing himself to the audience as a "proffessional spinner of lies." However, he assures the audience of his sincerity with a hint of pathos- stating ironically that; "There are a few days in the year when I do not engage in telling lies, and today happens to be one of them."
Techniques: He uses allusion, anaphora, and anecdotes in his first ethos section to solidify his approach with the audience, and assure them that he is qualified to issue his "truth" as a professional spinner of lies.
Effectiveness: This introduction is effective in the sense that it conveys a cryptic and fairly unsettling message- which is that you cannot ever trust Murakami, but you can trust him today. Murakami knows that this is contradictory, and he deliberately establishes novelists as spinners of lies while claiming their similarity to people like politicians and military leaders. Murakami created the intial uncomfortable paranoia necessary for turning th trust of the people against the system by turning them against himself. He was also effective in ensuring that the people knew he was not approving of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and not on any one side. However, he is inneffective in a broader sense, because he encourages negative ethos and leaves the listener confused and conflicted about his goals and his true purpose.

Section 2: Logos- The System, The Wall

Purpose: To show the people that the truth is at the base of all big lies, and that this can and is spun any which way on a large scale, by anyone/everyone. Murakami wants the people to realize the true power of discreet emotional and social corruption harbored by the system. Don't trust the system.
Appeals: Intrestingly enough, Murakami utilizes his own personal "logos" in order to drive home his metaphor of the egg and the wall. While not necessarily holding up as a formal line of logic, his decree that he will "always stand on the side of the egg" sets the baseline for all of his subsequent reasoning.
Techniques: Heavily utilizing imagery, mmurakami calls upon his surrealist background to evoke a visions
Effectiveness: Very effective. Murakami states his ultimatum of reasoning- that he will always be on the side of the people, no matter how wrong they may be, instead of the system. He guides the audience through his reasoning by using an extended metaphor- effectively explaining his ideology with an egg and a wall. He acknowledges that there are many such interpretations of his choice metaphor, and he mentions one. He then begins to acknowledge another interpretation- with a deeper significance, which effectively brings the listener into his next section; using pathos to explore and encourage the individual.

Section 3: Pathos- The Individual, The Egg

Purpose: To return strength to the individual. To point out that while we were the creators of the sytem we can also be its undoers, but we must have faith in ourselves as a people- across all barries set between us by the system.
Appeals: A strong dose of pathos, Murakami calls upon the listener to take action, reminds them with a bit of logos that since they created the system, they can rise above it. Murakami shows his awareness of his audience by trying to inspire them to band together across all nationalities, reflecting the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Techniques: Murakami emphasizes the importance of preserving the individual sould by exoking imagery when he says; "The purpose of a story is to sound an alarm, to keep a light trained on The System in order to prevent it from tangling our souls in its web and demeaning them." He is putting the system under the scrutinizing spotlight, trying to convince the people that the system is actually a sly and dangerous animal that can be trapped if they work together.
Effectiveness: The pathos techniques utilized by Murakami in this section really bring his final point home. He has already defined the System and it's relationship with the Egg in broad terms, but he makes it deeper in this section with an emotional anecdote, and literary techniques that emphasize his diction. He want's to drag the truth out of its hiding place and into the eyes of the people. He want to encourage the individual soul, and show them that the system is the root of their problems. He is very effective in his dramatic ending, putting responsibility for the creation and destruction of the System in the hands of the people. Leaving them with a clear message; move towards change. Work for the soul, and not the system.

Chuchill vs. Goebbels

Both of these influential wartime figures used the inevitable collapse of society as an ultimatum. Churchill delivered his proclamation passionately, saying; "victory; victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." He succinctly stressed the importance of the war effort, and the importance of some sacrifice in order to achieve victory. Not only does Churchill rally up the   British citizens, but he expressed a pure form of patriotic humility when he said that he will give his "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" to the cause he believes is right. Goebbels did no such thing. Goebbels took 20 pages of writing to convey what Churchill did in one paragraph. Goebbels rants about "International Jewry" and "Bolshevism." While Churchill just referred to the force they are fighting as a "monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime," Goebbels made sure to detail every last nook and cranny of the perceived evil, thereby invading every corner of the German people's minds- filling them with insecurity and paranoia. Goebbels not only wants his listeners to believe the very fiber of their society is in danger from "Bolshevism," but he wants his listeners to believe their very lives and livelihoods are in danger should they resist the war effort. He makes that clear with his multitudes of threats, one in particular warning that those who refuse to work tirelessly in Germany would be sent to the front lines for a near inevitable slaughter. In contrast, Churchill had warned of these sacrifices in broad terms, not wanting to primarily inspire fear in his listeners, but hope. Goebbels inspired fear and a personal kind of watchfulness that no doubt pressured the German citizens into conformity with the Reich's demands.
Instead of wagering his own personal welfare- his whole being, essentially- in the war effort and the quest for victory, Goebbels kept himself detached as a kind of overseer, and did not promise his own sacrifices.  Churchill offered all of himself alongside the people, and Goebbels merely promised an approving glance should the German people bend under his will. Their similarities are obvious, but the nuance of language in both speeches reveals how different they really are. The context of each speech is also important. Goebbels was giving his speech to a huge audience of carefully selected working class people, those who were not educated enough to make their own informed decisions about the war and were blinded to the atrocities being committed by their own country. Churchill, however,was giving his speech to parliament, which one could assume was a small group of elite, wealthy, and educated men. There was no hooting and chanting during Churchill's speech, or at least it wasn't included in the transcript. In contrast, the reaction of Goebbels audience was enthusiastic and highlighted in transcript, adding a sense of intensity to Goebbels words, and proving to the listener/reader that his propaganda was deliberate and effective. His immediate audience was much larger and produced loud reactions- although, both Churchill's and Goebbels's speeches were broadcast, so many people outside the audience also heard them. Overall, both speakers were making an attempt to energize their listeners to be a part of a total war effort, and both succeeded in using different methods.