Zoe Gabel

Dr. Wynne

ENG102

The fight against Trump is fueled with the anger and the fear of the American people.

When many think of Trump becoming our new president, they think the worst. These views are

shown in the two genres that I have selected. The genres I chose are a visual, which is a cartoon

made by SOTU, and an oral genre which is in the form of a speech made by Ashley Judd. Both

the speech and the visual give power to the fight against President Trump. The visual is of an

elephant sitting on a hospital bed, former president Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe

Biden are in scrubs looking at the elephant. The catch is that the elephant not only has Trumps

hair, but his face on the butt of the elephant. The artist is implying that Trump is a disease. The

visual has few words however the words that are shown are important to the understanding of the

cartoon. In the speech bubble, Obama is saying, finding a cure for cancers one thing. The

speech is powerful as well, however in a very different way. The speech was given at the

Womens March on Washington by Ashley Judd, an actor. She sheds light on the things that

Trump is doing which discriminate against women, and different races. She uses slang from the

Trump administration, and Trump himself. She makes change sound like a necessity and not a

choice. These two genres, although both effective, differ greatly with the speech having a more

powerful message and effect on the audience.

The purpose of the cartoon and the visual are the same. They both are trying to

illuminate/bring to life the injustices of the Trump presidency. They are both trying to induce a

change, a change that will only happen if the audience, Americans, are motivated enough to fight

for those changes. The cartoon does this using humor and exaggeration. Obviously, Donald
Trump is not a face on the butt of an elephant. The cartoon exaggerates by putting his face on the

butt of an elephant. They also exaggerate when they compare him to cancer. This technique helps

to make the audience to associate Trump with negative things. This is to increase the dislike

toward Trump, therefore instilling the drive to fight against him. By having Obama say, finding

a cure for cancers one thing, they not only bring in humor, but exaggerate on just how bad

Trump is. The author is trying to convey that Trump is worse or harder to eliminate than cancer.

Because that statement is so extreme it causes the audience to see Trump as something

equivalent to cancer, and who wants their president to be like a disease. The speech, or oral genre

helps to instill this drive as well, however in a more effective way for this specific topic. Ashley

Judd does not sugar coat anything during her speech. It is very raw and expressive of not only

her feelings, but of many nation-wide. Her use of words that are familiar and unfiltered causes

the speech to be more relatable to the audience, helping her to connect with the audience. Judd

started off with basic information about the terrible things Trump has said about women and

especially women of different races. She then begins to tell how she is a nasty woman,

following each nasty woman statement with a comparison of a Trump statement or action. For

example, Judd says, I am not as nasty as Im not as nasty as your daughter being your favorite

sex symbol, but yeah I am a nasty woman. This is a shot at Trump, saying that Trump is using

his daughter as a sex symbol. Comments such as this helps to highlight how sickening Trumps

values and morals are and helps to infuriate and excite the audience.

People believe things that arent always true, so the genres must be credible. The cartoon

and the speech go about this differently, again, the speech being the more successful of the two.

The cartoon has little to no credibility. It is more opinion based than fact based. The artist of this

cartoon attempted to credit his work by having Obama saying, finding a cure for cancers one
thing. He did this because Obama is well respected and a president who people of all ages,

sexes, and color look up to. The author was aware that people listen to what Obama says because

they believe him to be reliable. By using Obama in his cartoon, he is making the statement

reliable and more credible. The artist also used this tactic by putting Joe Biden in the cartoon,

although he does not have a word cloud, the author knows that they are a significant pair. In the

oral genre, Judd uses different tactics to help credit her speech. Judd uses the words of Trump,

the person she is targeting, against him. Using his phrases helps to credit her work by giving

people specific examples of Trumps hate. When the audience hears the derogatory things that

Trump has said, especially in Judds powerful, anger filled voice, it reminds people of what

Trump is doing and saying specifically, not just something he allegedly said. For example, she

uses Trumps infamous line, grab them by the pussy and then continues to say, Our pussies

aint for grabbing, our pussies are for our pleasure and they are for birthing new generations of

nasty women. Her second statement gains more credibility by using a direct quote from Trump.

She uses this technique of quoting Trump and his administration throughout the speech, therefore

causing her speech to be overall more credible than the cartoon.

The genres may have struggled or excelled in being credible, due to the limitations and

freedoms of the genre. Again, we find that the speech has less limitations than the cartoon. One

of the big limitations that the cartoon has is it leaves the audience to interpret the cartoon in any

way they want. The artist cant ensure that the audience gets the picture he is trying to paint.

There is also no way to hear the tone of a cartoon. This can also contribute to the audience

getting mixed or wrongful messages. This makes it important for the artist to use color, careful

diction, and facial expressions. In the Trump cartoon the colors are dark and dreary except for the

scrubs that Obama and Biden are in, which are bright greens, and the elephants/Trumps scrubs
which are a dark green. The dreary scenery helps to convey the dreariness of the Trump

presidency so far. This helps the audience to understand the message the artist is getting across.

If the colors were bright and cheery the message would be one of positivity towards Trump, it

may confuse and distort the interpretation of the audience. On top of this, the artist used facial

expressions to convey the message. For example, Obama and Bidens faces are turned down,

with a look of confusion, angst, and sadness. Whereas, the elephant has an expression of concern

and shock, probably because he has Trumps face on his butt. Trump is depicted with an

expression that we have seen on television and in pictures. One of malice and anger, his face is

droopy and extremely red. With the clearly negative expressions it helps to ensure that the

audience will understand the insult toward Trump. Another limitation that the cartoon has is the

diction. There can only be so many words in a cartoon making it hard to convey the full message,

some of the message therefore must be decoded by the audience. On the other hand, the speech

has less limitations if any at all. Judd can say what she is trying to convey, and show the emotion

behind her speech without too much trouble. The audience can hear her voice and the tone of her

voice leaving no room for the audience to think she is angry when she is happy and vice versa.

This allows her to be able to put emphasis on powerful phrases such as her quote from Nina

Donovans poem, I feel Hitler in these streets, a mustache traded for a toupee. Nazis renamed.

Turning rainbows to suicide notes. They can also see her facial expressions, and she can see

theirs helping to build that connection between speaker and audience which is important when

giving a speech. Judd is therefore able to connect and project her feelings onto her audience

directly. One restriction the speech has is the time restraint. She was speaking at a march in

Washington, DC however, there was not only the concern of allowing time for others to speak,

but of staying on time for the actual marching. She could not talk for hours, however, in this case
it was beneficial to her. She got the point across bluntly and directly, if she had lengthened the

speech it may have become redundant for the audience therefore losing their attention.

In conclusion, the oral genre was more successful and captivating than the cartoon.

Although both genres got the point across to the audience, there were many aspects in which the

speech had the upper hand on the cartoon. These aspects include how well they serve their

purpose, their credibility, and the limitations and freedoms of the genres. Both Ashley Judd and

the artist of the cartoon, STOU did a good job at sending out the message to stop Trumps hate,

however, the speech was more powerful and effective in reaching and influencing the audience.