Citizen Response 1

I didn't know what to think about Citizen after having initially read it. It was a bit all over the place, and I personally felt that the strict use of stories and rhetoric made the paper lack in content and singular idea.

I caught myself wondering, "is this book a piece of protest?" And after skimming through the book a second time, I realized that, no, I felt it was not an object of protest. My main reason is that protest usually has a clear idea of what change it wants to bring about; but not only that, but it attempts to catalyze that change for itself. I feel that the "call to arms" aspect of a piece of protest is what separates an object of protest from an object that is meant as protest supplement. This book tells many accounts of privilege and hardship, but it doesn't necessarily try to take the privileged down. Furthermore, I would even go as far as to say that it doesn't really specify any identity for the aggressors. The book is not setting out to start riots, as much as it is meant to be in conjunction with protest. In other words, if paralleled with an ongoing protest, the book can serve as an effective link for the privileged class to identify with the underprivileged. A group of oppressors may or may not realize the severity of their privilege, and this book can be very effective job for showing that privilege in real life anecdotes and in emotional detail. As a core object of rhetoric, however, this book lacks a target group, it lacks a solution, and the purpose of the book, if protest related, is simply inferred by the reader, which means is can be open for interpretation. If someone had handed me the same book but told me it was written by a white racist author, this book would not be extremely confusing (though it might read horribly offensive). The purpose of the book would be vastly different, but strangely enough I feel that it would take the same amount of effort to extract purpose from the book with that knowledge as it did knowing who the real author is.

This book was beautiful and artistic, but it lacked the essence of protest in my opinion. It read rather confusing, and the purpose was unclear. Even through all of this, I enjoyed Rankine's use of rhetoric. It was a huge indicator that this book was meant for protest. She appealed to me as a reader on multiple levels, and although I don't identify with the author, her use of identity toward the reader was an effective way to immerse them in her stories. With use of multiple identities, she reached a large audience in the same way; by putting them in a situation they are not familiar with. That purpose was masterfully achieved by Rankine. Her book was strong in its identity and use of rhetoric, but could have been much more clear on its true purpose, and its categorization as an object of protest.