In the Arms of the Angels

After I saw Hecuba, I started thinking about Sarah McLachlan dog videos (for some strange reason.)  Sarah McLachlan uses rhetoric; Euripides, mimesis (or acting).  Both McLachlan and Euripides attempt to convince the audience of something through emotion.  What is most interesting is the comparison between the use of pathos in mimesis and rhetoric.
            Both mimesis’s and rhetoric’s application of pathos can occasionally be ineffective.  In Hecuba, the audience is moved to feel sadness, loss, and emptiness through Hecuba’s wailing cries and her actions.  Likewise, rhetoric pulls on the heartstrings through jarring stories and experiences.  Occasionally, the logos’ attempts to pull on emotions are overdone.  I sometimes became a tad disconcerted with Hecuba’s cries and was tempted to emit an awkward laugh rather than sympathize with Hecuba’s condition.  This probably was due to the fact that I do not live in ancient Greece and the hyperbole of sadness was a little too much more for me.  The kairos was a little off.  Likewise, in some rhetorical situations, the pathos can become almost too much, like in Sarah McLachlan’s speech about dog cruelty.  I always just turn off the TV.  Sometimes, you just don’t want to empathize.  

Hecuba's sadness creates an usually
effective emotional appeal for the
audience.

However, done correctly and with the right implementation of kairos, both mimesis and rhetoric can effectively persuade your emotions.  Though Hecuba commits a terrible murder of two innocent children, we are emotionally persuaded by her own sorrows that revenge not a bad thing.  We support Hecuba, not condemn her.  Likewise, in McLachlan’s emotional speech about the animals that need us, she convinces us that “just 60 cents a day” can help animals in need even though we know deep down that animal abuse cannot be stopped easily.  Clearly, though mimesis and rhetoric are both logos, they both employ pathos to create effect.