Rhetorical Analysis of Lawrence Krauss

            Language has a funny way of changing our understanding of a topic. This idea is the definition of rhetoric: using one’s language to change how information is presented and, consequently, how it is understood by the audience. When addressing a formal, knowledgeable audience, an author may use more formal, scientific jargon. However, when addressing the general public, an author would use terms that are generally known and is less formal in the presentation of the information. This difference is evident when reading an author’s journal article versus their popular publications (such as a book). The author in question is Lawrence Krauss, and his works are “From Here to Eternity” and A Universe from Nothing: Why there is Something Rather than Nothing, respectively. The main focus will lay on the book, though. In his book, Lawrence Krauss explores why our universe had formed when it easily could have not formed through his open-ended questions, ethos, diction, and his story-telling.

            Open-ended questions are very important to an informal quest for the reader when trying to make the reader ponder as well as address them with information. Since Krauss tries to tell a story in A Universe from Nothing, he has to keep the audience interested because the people who would be reading the work are not ones who are particularly interested or knowledgeable in the area, so they need to be entertained to want to continue reading. One simple way of keeping interest is to cause the reader to wonder and ponder a certain thought instead of just telling them information. When we wonder, we actively try to find out what the answer is, and we will keep reading in a hope to find said answer. One perfect example of his use of open-ended questions is in the preface to the paperback edition, in which Krauss says “[Stuff came from no stuff] Therefore where did the 400 billion or so galaxies that make up the observable universe come from?” This question simply cannot be answered in a sentence following this one, so the read must read on to find out. To contrast this, Krauss’ “From Here to Eternity” has no questions because it is written towards people who are interested in the field, presumably because they are also experts/knowledgeable in the field. Krauss does not need to use mystery to keep the reader entertained and reading, instead the subject does that. This rhetorical element is very different between the two types of works, and the difference helps emphasize his exploration of why there is something rather than nothing.

            Krauss is a solid authority when discussing the universe and why something formed in the beginning rather than the nothing continuing. Many times Krauss brings up scientific advances and studies, as in Kepler’s epiphany in the preface to the paperback edition, and Einstein’s completion of his life work in the beginning of chapter one. Krauss obviously shows a great deal of knowledge in the area by incorporating these studies and advances. Not only does he know a lot about the studies, but he knows how to use them as examples, which shows a greater deal of understanding, usually on the level of an expert in the field. His ethos allows him to be reliable when discussing the topic of physics and the universe. Ethos is not only important in public works, though. In his scholarly works, Krauss needs to prove he is knowledgeable on the subject. The main difference between proving his ethos in his public works and proving it in his scholarly works is that for his scholarly work, it is implied that he is a leader in the field because his work is peer reviewed, but in his public work Krauss must prove it because he is not a household name. His ethos allows him to be taken seriously in his work, and to be able to effectively explore why some rather than nothing formed in the universe.

     Diction is very important when consulting rhetoric. Diction sets the pace for how the author will communicate during the course of the piece. So, seeing as the main part of this analysis is the public work he does, it would make sense that the diction of the piece be somewhat playful, but also be simple enough for the average person to understand without losing the meaning of the information being presented. It may seem a little odd to need the diction to be playful, but playful diction is very important in keeping the reader interested. A good book is an investment, and the reader needs to have a reason to want to continue reading. A good reason to keep reading and to keep interest is a playful tone. I have yet to meet a person who wants to read a monotonous, fact driven paper that is longer than 200 pages. Krauss proves that his diction is easily understandable because, when he introduces a difficult topic like Einstein’s general theory of relativity (Krauss 1), he explains the topic in terms that better suit the average reader. On the contrary, if Krauss were to bring up Einstein’s general theory of relativity in “From Here to Eternity” (which he does, in the fourth paragraph), he does not need to explain what the general theory of relativity is, because it is assumed that everyone who is reading the article knows what Einstein’s general theory of relativity is. Also, Krauss’ diction is fairly bubbly in both works, with both creating a slightly more relaxed tone, but that may just be Krauss’ style, and not necessarily representative of authors everywhere. By explaining his more complex terms to a general audience, Krauss is better able to explain why something formed from nothing.

     Krauss is a story teller in his book A Universe from Nothing. He starts his book with “It was a dark and stormy night.” (Krauss 1) for crying out loud; that is the ultimate story telling cliché. At any rate, the sense of a story creates in our mind the idea that we will be exploring, which is exactly what Krauss wanted us as readers to do. As we read through his book, Krauss slowly unravels the reasons why our universe formed, which helps the reader stay interested in the topic. But, this slow unraveling of the truth also helps the reader better understand the topic. Unlike a knowledgeable person on the topic, the average reader cannot be thrown large amounts of information and be expected to get the correct conclusion from them. A knowledgeable person on the subject will take on the larger amounts of information because they already have a solid foundation to stack more knowledge atop. By slowly addressing more topics as they become important instead of piling large amounts of information in one sitting, which is consistent with a story telling method, Krauss can better present his thesis and have a better understanding by his audience.

     The way an author presents their information is vital to understanding. Knowing the situation that a piece will be read in and who the target audience is allows for the reader to employ the proper rhetoric (which is how the author presents their information). In order to effectively get their thesis across, authors carefully assess their rhetoric. Krauss carefully chose how he was going to use his words and what words he would use to set the right tone and make sure the proper audience would understand. Krauss also left open-ended questions in his book to help the reader better understand the topic, because they are not scholars in the field. Story telling allowed for the information to be more easily digested by the reader of the popular book, which would not be very important to the scholars reading his articles because they already have a sturdy scientific background. Krauss also made sure to make his ethos apparent, which is very important to an unknowing average reader so they know that they are being told the truth. However, ethos is implied when writing a scholarly article, hence it being called scholarly. All of these factors allowed for Krauss to prepare for his rhetorical situation and audience’s ability and level of knowledge. By employing these rhetorical devices, Krauss was better able to express his thesis and make it understood.