Reflective Essay

Reflective Essay:

An Analysis of Learning in English 360

Throughout the semester in English 360, we focused on the development and evolution of rhetoric in several key capacities. We analyzed its progression from Classical Rhetoric oration to Modern Rhetoric digitalization. We explored how technological advances or social upheavals ignite change in rhetoric as well. Finally, we learned how rhetoric can be presented in an almost unlimited number of mediums to an enormous array of audiences. Through class lectures, at-home readings, blog entries, and a series of essays, I personally was able to develop a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of rhetoric. I reaffirmed existing strengths, such as overall composition, establishing my own ethos, making logical arguments, and organization, in addition to honing new skills, including source evaluation, appealing to pathos, invention, and creative, self-generated writing. English 360 was a challenging course that provided me the opportunity to grow as both an evaluator and creator of rhetoric, as exemplified by my body of work.

As a Professional Writing and Rhetoric major, I have a more substantial education and background in rhetoric than most students. I believe that this foundation has afforded me many unique skills as a writer; fortunately, the coursework in English 360 gave me the opportunity to showcase many of these strengths. Overall, I think that I entered the semester with a strong capacity for holistic writing. My overall composition is always consistent, well-argued and proven, and eloquently written. In reference to the three essays written for this class, I received a “5” or “6” – indicating a mastery of the skill – for holistic rating criteria. This demonstrates my overall strength as a writer to write comprehensively. Another existing skill is my ability to create ethos. For all three essays, I received a “6,” showing that I had completely mastered the establishment of author credibility. As demonstrated in course rubrics, ethos is by far one of my most honed skills. Through in-depth research and discussion of said research, I proved myself to be quite knowledgeable on the topics. And just as doing thorough research prior to writing gave me ethical appeal, it also made my arguments sound through logos. Previous English classes have solidified my expertise in developing logical proofs. Strong, supportive evidence is invaluable to proving arguments. For essays two and three, I used a minimum of four meaningful secondary sources, thereby affirming my mastery of the skill according to rubric requirements. The final pre-existing quality that was highlighted in English 360 is my arrangement style in terms of paper organization. Receiving a score of “5” on essay one and scores of “6” on subsequent essays, I have quite clearly mastered this attribute. Information is ordered in a sequential, understandable way that best engages with the audience. Knowing the significance of organization to overall argument impact, I always make it a key focus while composing an essay. In general, English 360 helped to reaffirm as well as feature existing skills and strengths; however, course material and assignments also challenged me to improve upon abilities that were previously weak.

I am quite proud of my work in this course, especially in regards to self-improvement. While utilization of research was already a mastered skill, I struggled in terms of making that information accessible to the readers. This course taught me to develop information more fully as opposed to just presenting research as-is; black-and-white information dissemination can be too difficult for an audience to engage with. My development with this skill is marked by a grade improvement from my first essay to later ones. Furthermore, as a very logic-minded person, I can often neglect pathetic appeals in my arguments; receiving a “4” in this criteria on essay one made me acutely aware of my struggle to appeal to the audience emotionally. On essays two and three, I made a conscious effort to consider my audience. I deconstructed research, reconsidered assignment requirements, and asked outside proofreaders for their feedback. Being that I received scores of “5” – near mastery – on essays two and three, I believe that these efforts made noticeable and meaningful improvements. I hope to utilize this new skill in future writing endeavors. Invention is another area in which I had hoped to improve, but consistently received “5”s. These scores aside, I believe that I made significant improvements in this skill. As a highly analytical person, I am generally not very imaginative. I can write quite well to professor-generated topics, but struggle with more ambiguous essays. English 360 encouraged me to improve upon this difficulty through daily blog entries and only generally focused essay themes. Being that I got overall high scores on essays, I think that I learned to better compose from readings, research, and experience in order to generate my own questions and points of argument.

Essay one was a very interesting paper as it was far more reflective than research-based. Overall, this was my weakest essay and highlighted areas for improvement; however, it also revealed areas in which I was already strong. For example, essay one quite clearly exemplifies my ability to argue with logos. Comments on this paper, which received a “6” for logos, included, “Terrific job of analyzing your choices!” I believe that I did exceptionally well in addressing challenges faced while writing a speech, how struggles were overcome, and why I made particular text selections. The requirements of this essay asked that we describe the process of writing an imitatio. One of the things I struggled with was how to write the essay without rambling or being too inconsistent in my train of thought. Writing the essay according to a linear, chronological approach proved quite successful. In forcing me to choose my own approach to the theme, I was able to improve my logical and inventive abilities. Another skill I was encouraged to hone on essay one was my personal development of ethos. As this was a self-reflective essay, I could not rely on research data to create credibility. Instead, I had to focus internally, which is a new process for me. Another problem that I encountered was that, in order to try to prove my argument, I repeated myself a great deal on first drafts. Proofreaders felt that I was being unnecessarily repetitive, and such repetitiveness seemed more condescending than informative. Taking this criticism to heart, I tried to better engage readers without talking down to them; unfortunately, because I got a “5” on audience accessibility and only a “4” on pathos, I think that I did only a mediocre job of meeting my goal. Such scores taught me that meeting my audience’s needs is an area in need of great improvement. In writing this essay, I also learned the importance of self-reflection – a process that I am rarely exposed to.

In writing essay two, I was reminded of many essays I have written for previous English classes. This essay was very much research-based, as we were assigned an analysis of the printing press. Essay two was quite comfortable to write as I could focus on my strengths of using logical, evidentiary support and ethos. As shown by scores of “6” in these categories, I am quite good at working with facts. Utilizing five meaningful secondary sources, I was complimented: “[Y]ou really do a terrific job of writing from complex source material.” I believe that I provided thought-provoking, sophisticated evidence that showed me to be knowledgeable on the subject matter. I always welcome practicing these skills, as research essays are the most common styles in academia. The process of writing essay two was quite similar to most of my methods. I begin with research, formulate an argument based upon such research, and then begin essay composition. This system, I believe, allows for the most comprehensive, in-depth, and convincing arguments; essentially, this is the holistic component. Receiving a rating of “6” for holistic criteria reaffirmed that my composition process is quite strong. Unfortunately, similar to essay one that struggled with meeting the audience’s needs, so did essay two. While the argument is entirely logical and provable, it is not particularly engaging. Though I teach what I have learned and ideas are consistent throughout, I somewhat neglect my audience’s desire for interesting material. Though I tried to put into action the things I learned from essay one, it resulted in a boost of just one point from a “4” to a “5.” Pure information dissemination can be boring and monotonous. In general, I learned from essay two that I am a strong research essayist and that my composition methodology is sound; however, I was reminded to be sympathetic with my audience to try to better relate to them.

Essay three was, again, was similar to my previous writing experiences. Just as with papers two and three, I earned mastery ratings in both logos and ethos categories. I enjoy and am skillful with fact-based analyses. In addition to these qualities, I also showcased by arrangement and organization skills. Essay three demonstrated my ability to derive a powerful thesis, create a progression of ideas based off this thesis, and present an easy-to-follow and cohesive argument. My thesis, which received high praise from both peers and the professor was: “Barack Obama’s official presidential candidacy speech provides a strong example of modern rhetoric as exists in the 21^st century, particularly when exploring elements of delivery, language, audience, and culture.” It was quite easy to base the rest of my essay of this highly detailed argument. Therein, I had a highly organized paper; in general, I described how Obama’s speech is an exemplary model of modern rhetoric in the context of delivery, language, audience, and culture. I also found the same process as essay two to work just as well with essay three, meaning research, argument, and then writing. If nothing else, English 360 certainly confirmed my affinity for research first then composition as a successful process for rhetoric. In terms of challenges associated with essay three, I encountered one low score. Though the organizational arrangement got a mastered critique, I am still developing the evidence engagement portion of arrangement. Though highly logical and cohesive, I lacked the “so what” component. Essentially, the essay was too narrowly focused and did not look to the bigger picture. In fact, the professor requested at the end of the essay, “[A] place where you’re thinking about the future would be welcome.” For someone as analytical as myself, much in the same way that I ignore audience’s emotional needs, I can forget to expand arguments outside the box of facts. I would have liked to explore the future of modern rhetoric, but got stuck with present-day data. I am quite proud of the straightforwardness and consistency represented in essay three while also taking away criticism of the narrow-mindedness I demonstrated; as with the previous essays, I know where to focus my efforts for future improvement.

I am confident in the work I have done in English 360. I believe that each piece represents a distinctive and important point in my academic growth. I have proven myself to be a successful rhetorician throughout the semester, a point that is evidenced in each of my pieces of writing. For me, the consistent use of logical and ethical appeals was the defining characteristic of my composition style. Through essays and blog entries specifically, I was able to showcase existing strengths as well as develop those skills that were previously weak. Existing strengths included overall composition, establishing my own ethos, making logical arguments, and organization. On the other hand, I practiced new skills such as source evaluation, appealing to pathos, invention, and creative, self-generated writing. Through English 360, I have learned to expand upon ideas in an effort to better relate to my audience and develop creative, “so what” arguments; I should not get stuck in the analytics. I am proud of my efforts in this course, in my ability to both demonstrate existing skills as well as hone new strengths.

Response to Reading Eighteen

While I am a Professional Writing and Rhetoric major, I was still startled by the finite details that go into a logical proof as described in The Rhetorical Tradition, from Toulmin's essay. Interestingly, I have actually been assigned a Toulmin essay before. Though I have access to this particular piece, I cannot remember the details of the assignment. In examining it, it seemed to be a very basic research paper. I could not distinguish this essay from any of my others, though it was technically in a Toulmin-format. To me, this suggests that individuals do not, nor should they, focus on the finite details of composition. When the breakdown of ideas and organization becomes too excessive, it can be easy to lose sight of the entirety of the argument; acknowledge of the big picture cannot necessarily happen with conscious attempts to meet Toulmin requirements.

Though professors have regurgitated ethos, pathos, and logos more than I can count, we only seem to cover the basic principles of these. It is easy to understand rhetoric in terms of ethical (author credibility), pathetic (emotion), and logical (reasonable) approaches. They are simple! I have been taught that convincing arguments are always based on these, no question. Therefore, it was interesting to extensively explore the rhetorical proof of logos with the purpose of better understanding its complexities and development. This was fascinating and new to me.

As a writer, I think that I take advantage of my ability to compose sound and persuasive arguments. In many ways, the technique of using rhetorical proofs is just second nature. I know what sounds appealing, reasonable, and persuasive without blinking. Never do I consciously think about the premise of my argument, syllogismos, epagoges, or particulars. Why would I?! In fact, writing might be more of a chore if this was the case. Nevertheless, it was an engaging study for me. Improvement always comes with greater knowledge; perhaps more awareness in the technicalities of writing a logical proof will be reflected in my composition process. Self-awareness is key to progress, I believe. One can only get better by having a thorough knowledge of their task.

In my own writing experience, I have never had such a linear progression of ideas as exists with premises. Not that this does not happen with frequency by pure subconscious, but it is such a detailed and deconstructive thought process that I was taken aback. If I were to try to consciously breakdown my ideas and arguments in such a manner, I might go crazy. Nobody actually thinks this way. The human mind has the ability to overlap, synthesize, and conclude without the thinker even doing the thinking. For the most part, we connect the dots of our arguments effortlessly.

This was a terribly frustrating concept for me. Even though I am a sometimes obnoxiously analytical and methodical person, I still found this deconstruction of ideas to be insanely finite and detailed. On some occasions, like with very complex research papers, premises might make more sense. But for everyday writing purposes, it might be somewhat excessive.

Analysis of Modern Rhetoric

Analysis of Modern Rhetoric:

An Exploration of Obama’s Candidacy Speech

Rhetoric is, in its simplest form, communication. It is both conscious and subconscious in its attempt to convey a message. “How we perceive, what we know, what we experience, and how we act are the results of our own symbol use and that of those around us; rhetoric is the term that captures all these processes. For us, rhetoric is the human use of symbols to communicate” (Foss et al. 1). Being that rhetoric is simply symbolic communication, it stands to reason that almost anything can be rhetorical. Words, no matter their delivery, have the ability to expose perspective on behalf of both writer and reader. “[R]hetoric is symbol, by which we mean something that stands for or represents something else by virtue of relationship, association, or convention” (Foss et al. 2). Such is the case throughout the existence of rhetoric.

Rhetoric has experienced six distinct periods since its formal inception in the fourth century B.C.E.; these periods include classical, medieval, renaissance, enlightenment, nineteenth-century, and modern rhetoric. Though each period had obvious and unique characteristics from those surrounding it, a common thread exists among them all. Rhetoric was used with the aim of delivering a message to an audience; in most cases, this message was intended to be persuasive. And, modern rhetoric is no different from traditional styles in this aspect. The same basic concept has reigned true for centuries. However, there are distinguishable differences between modern rhetoric and prior periods. In many ways, modern rhetoric is far more relatable, analytical, and applicable than the flowery language and roundabout arguments that marked early classical and medieval rhetoric. Barack Obama’s official presidential candidacy speech provides a strong example of modern rhetoric as exists in the 21^st century, particularly when exploring elements of delivery, language, audience, and culture.

In the winter of 2007, Barack Obama, a young senator from Illinois, announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. The 30-minute speech was televised nationally to an audience of thousands; it marked the first in a long string of speeches that would rally millions of voters and, ultimately, help him to win the election. Obama’s candidacy announcement is demonstrative of contemporary rhetoric in that it was written with the specific intention of speech. “Departments of speech formed in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century, breaking away from English departments, whose primary focus was literature. The curriculum of the new speech department was based on [public speaking]” (“Modern” 1186). Rather than a press release that textually announced Obama’s candidacy, he chose an oratory method. This is a far cry from textbook-based rhetoric that plagued post-Gutenberg printing press eras. After this advancement, the tradition of oration was somewhat lost because it was no longer necessary. Rhetoric developed an audience of readers rather than listeners; rhetoric was first for text, then – only maybe – for speech. However, required business skills of the 20^th century ignited newfound interest in teaching speech and presentation skills. “The speech course [continues] to be quite popular with students for whom the ability to speak confidently, both on the job and in community life, may be as important as the ability to write well” (“Modern” 1186). Such education has persisted into present day and has dramatically influenced modern rhetoric. Speech is now a commonplace in academic, political, and professional arenas. Obama’s announcement is highly reflective of a society that encourages oration, specifically in the realm of politics. Academia has helped to solidify the penchant for beautifully delivered speeches as society’s marker for success.

Language choice is another element of Obama’s announcement that reveals its achievement as an example of modern rhetoric. The speech begins with a very individualistic approach. For example, he says:

[L]et me tell you how I came to be here…I moved to Illinois over two decades ago. I was a young man then, just a year out of college. [A] group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer for $13,000 a year. And I accepted the job, sight unseen, motivated then by a single, simple, powerful idea – that I might play a small part in building a better America. (Obama)

The speech continues for several minutes with reference to personal experiences, beliefs, and accomplishments of the senator. In sharing personal stories, Obama is establishing credibility for himself. Whereas the earliest forms of rhetoric depended on group involvement and collaboration, modern rhetoric values individual ethos. Political upheaval in 1960s and 1970s America effectively worked to prioritize personal thoughts over popular opinion. “Personal writing, the individual’s search for an ‘authentic voice,’ was regarded as a form of opposition to the impersonal and oppressive Establishment…” (“Modern” 1185). This trend is still echoed in modern politics as personal statements of opposition are those most loudly heard and appreciated by citizens. Contemporary society is far more individual-centric than existed in Aristotelian times. Understanding this, Obama strategically began the speech with a personal statement that would help to better connect his audience. Personal expression is a prominent marker of modern rhetoric, as it was only dubbed acceptable within recent decades; therein, Obama’s speech is a key example of modern rhetoric.

Whereas statements of opposition are best relayed through individual testimonials, audience applicability is equally important in modern rhetoric. Obama does a flawless job melding the two components together. He seamlessly transitions from personal history to the duties of all citizens without hesitation or awkwardness.

I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change. The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed…Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what’s need to be done. Today we are called once more – and it is time for our generation to answer that call. (Obama)

In modern rhetoric, personal statements rouse groups of people in resistance to or defense of something while embracement and connection actually motivate people to take action of these assertions. In addressing the audience as “we,” Obama gives validation to a cause. “Our learning comes from interpretation, our disciplines grow by argument, our communities cohere through discourse, our ideologies are structures of persuasion” (“General Introduction” 15). Obama establishes himself as a leader initially with “I” statements then invites the audience to join his effort with “us” and “we” declarations. Unity is necessary in modern rhetoric to affirm community support. Society demands not only a strong leader, but also one with a collaborative, inclusive cause.

The cultural perspective associated with Obama’s candidacy announcement is another defining feature of modern rhetoric. As obvious as this might seem, Obama’s speech was history making because of his race. Just a few decades ago, African American rhetoric was largely ignored by mainstream society. It took the persistent efforts of dozens of rhetoricians and an enormous societal uprising to rid America of racist mindsets. “Enlarged as a theoretical resource, rhetoric has also expanded its grasp of the ways that women, people of color, and cultural or ethnic minorities use language to gain a hearing for themselves” (“Modern” 1183). As people of color are becoming increasingly involved in facets of politics and business, rhetoric will evolve to better facilitate their cultural norms and expectations. In general, the sheer fact that Obama was able to make the announcement of his presidential candidacy is a marker of modern rhetoric; quite simply, such a declaration would not have been possible in early periods. Obama’s speech is a powerful demonstration of rhetoric’s progression from ancient Greek times to contemporary, limitless opportunities.

It is interesting to compare traditional forms of rhetoric with modern interpretations as similarities and differences are readily apparent. In fact, there has been little difference in regards to the main goal of rhetoric; just as ancient orators hoped to inspire a crowd to some particular action or belief, contemporary politicians and lecturers desire an audience to rally for their cause as well. In its simplest, truest nature, rhetoric is simply communication. Not much has been lost in the way of this. This being said, modern rhetoric has changed a great deal in the finite details. This evolution includes delivery, language, audience, and culture. Modern rhetoric is far more accessible and relatable than existed a millennia ago, with an entirely new audience and culture with which to influence or draw inspiration. Digitalization has provided the masses an opportunity to access rhetoric like never before as well as enables the “everyday” individual an opportunity to broadcast his own materials. Contemporary rhetoric is less elitist, to be blunt. Approaches to rhetoric are quite different from ancient methodologies. As exemplified in Obama’s announcement of presidential candidacy, modern rhetoric has the innate ability to fuse traditional, pure practices of rhetoric with globalized and relatable traits of the present.

Works Cited

Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2001. Print.

“General Introduction.” The Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 1-16. Print.

“Modern and Postmodern Rhetoric: Introduction.” The Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 1181-1205. Print.

Obama, Barack. “Our Past, Future and Vision for America.” Obama Presidential Announcement. Springfield, IL. 10 Feb. 2007. Address. Web. http://www.barackobama.com. 28 Nov. 2010.

Response to Reading Seventeen

The Rhetorical Tradition describes the meaning of Modern and Post-Modern Rhetoric. I found it quite interesting to compare these contemporary understandings of rhetoric with more classic approaches. I came to realize that there are far more similarities than differences. Whereas the mediums in which rhetoric is displayed are quite varied from one period to the next, the content and delivery is not all that unique. Though I tend to think that society wants rhetoric to have progressed dramatically since the ages of Classical Rhetoric, I really do not think that it has. What worked in the fourth-century B.C.E. -- including the five classical elements and three rhetorical appeals -- are still applicable, perhaps with a slightly modern twist.

I was quite fascinated between classical themes of oration and those of modern politicians who often utilize oratory methods. Press releases a far cry from textbook-based rhetoric that plagued post-Gutenberg printing press eras. After this advancement, the tradition of oration was somewhat lost because it was no longer necessary. Rhetoric developed an audience of readers rather than listeners; rhetoric was first for text, then – only maybe – for speech. However, required business skills of the 20th century ignited newfound interest in teaching speech and presentation skills. “The speech course [continues] to be quite popular with students for whom the ability to speak confidently, both on the job and in community life, may be as important as the ability to write well” (“Modern” 1186). Such education has persisted into present day and has dramatically influenced modern rhetoric. Speech is now a commonplace in academic, political, and professional arenas. Press announcements are highly reflective of a society that encourages oration, specifically in the realm of politics. Academia has helped to solidify the penchant for beautifully delivered speeches as society’s marker for success.

Whereas the earliest forms of rhetoric depended on group involvement and collaboration, modern rhetoric values individual ethos. Political upheaval in 1960s and 1970s America effectively worked to prioritize personal thoughts over popular opinion. “Personal writing, the individual’s search for an ‘authentic voice,’ was regarded as a form of opposition to the impersonal and oppressive Establishment…” (“Modern” 1185). This trend is still echoed in modern politics as personal statements of opposition are those most loudly heard and appreciated by citizens. Contemporary society is far more individual-centric than existed in Aristotelian times. Personal expression is a prominent marker of modern rhetoric, as it was only dubbed acceptable within recent decades.

Whereas statements of opposition are best relayed through individual testimonials, audience applicability is equally important in modern rhetoric. In modern rhetoric, personal statements rouse groups of people in resistance to or defense of something while embracement and connection actually motivate people to take action of these assertions. Unity is necessary in modern rhetoric to affirm community support. Society demands not only a strong leader, but also one with a collaborative, inclusive cause.

Response to Reading Sixteen

Fortunately, I have been able to take several university classes that focus on racial issues in contemporary society. Many of these classes explore racial themes from the 1800s onward. Therein, I have read countless pieces by Frederick Douglass, including the essay in The Rhetorical Tradition. I find the struggles of African Americans, particularly those of Douglass's time to be almost unbearable. The conditions and social moods that these individuals were subject to are outrageous and horrific.

In one particular class, my professor used the phrase "write themselves into existence." To me, this was an absolutely poignant phrase that described how early African American writers had to literally write themselves into existence. In order to have an identity, they had to almost force it upon people. Another concept I have come to understand through these kinds of classes is that of "double consciousness" in which the individual is caught between an identity they want to have and an identity that has been given to them. Those this was a term coined by W.E.B. Dubois, I imagine that Douglass faced a similar struggle. I have learned a great deal in previous classes and reading Douglass's essay for a second time only helped to reaffirm my knowledge on the subject matter.

Nineteenth and twentieth century dominant discourses clung to three main ideas about African American culture. The first was simply that they were inferior to white society purely because their complexion was darker. The second belief was that all great accomplishments came from European ancestry. They saw African Americans as imitators incapable of being educated. Whites also viewed themselves to be the only civilized peoples because blacks, according to them, had no history of arts and sciences. Dominant discourses laid forth harsh judgments of African American society. But counter narratives, like the works of Douglass and so many others, encouraged an enlightenment of sorts. They created a defense against common thoughts of segregation, thus initiating momentous change. But interestingly, these doctrines of hope often shed additional light on the inner turmoil African Americans face while caught between the past and present. African Americans struggled between their heritage and their future, their identity and subjectivity.

African American writers were charged with the uphill battle of writing themselves into existence during the troubled times of nineteenth and twentieth-century America. Dominant discourses shaped white America’s thoughts. They allowed an ignorant, second-class stereotype to become the prevailing identity for African Americans. Unfortunately, it was a majority opinion unchallenged for decades. Sociology describes this as “institutional racism,” in which individuals may, unwillingly, succumb to the social pressures of racist behavior purely to fit in with cultural norms (McIntyre 34). The civil rights movement, often through the use of counter narratives, confronted such social traditions. African American authors showed America a more subjective view of themselves. The goal by writing themselves into existence was to disestablish the predominant standards, creating an identity based upon personal rather than cultural definitions. But in this battle to fight dominant discourses, African Americans were conflicted in a state of double consciousness. W.E.B. Dubois keenly describes this in Of Our Spiritual Strivings, “It is a peculiar sensation, this double consciousness…One ever feels his two-ness, --- an American, a Negro” (38). There was a disconnection between identity, cultural interpretations, and subjectivity, personal views of self. African Americans struggled with identification based on what past white Americans perceived and their own future ambitions of self definition.

I cannot begin to imagine the struggles that existed for these early rhetors of color. How brave they were to try to counter dominant trends that had been pervasive and horrific for centuries!

Works Cited

Dubois, W.E.B. “Of Our Spiritual Strivings.” The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago: UP John Wilson and Son, 1903. 37-44.
McIntyre, Lisa. The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Response to Reading Fifteen

In reading about nineteenth-century rhetoric in The Rhetorical Tradition, I am reminded of a Romantic author I studied in one of my previous English classes.

The Romantic Era began quickly after the Enlightenment, as focus on science and logic gave way to ideas of art and idealism. Nineteenth-century rhetoric, as described in The Rhetorical Tradition, is largely reflective of Romantic ideas I believe.

"[D]uring the eighteenth-century, poets and critics were developing a new model of literature that focused not on its ends but on its creation. The artist's mind, in this new view, is more relevant to an understanding of art than the mind of the audience is. The recurrent ideas of the Romantic revolution reflect this turn toward the creator of art" (Bizzell and Herzberg 995).

William Blake, the author in which I was reminded of, was an 18th century Romantic whose visionary world came to life in the words and illustrations of his poetry. A spiritual man, Blake created paintings from his vivid imagination, just as written expressions seemed to similarly come to him. Abstraction is common to Blake poetry; it can be difficult to see the connection between the poem and illustration depicted alongside. It takes a thorough dissection of both language and art to understand the poem’s meaning in its entirety. Furthermore, like many Romantic poets, it is his vivid imagination and madness that make Blake’s poetry so captivating. In "Songs of Innocence and of Experience," Blake epitomizes Romantic thought by describing many of the ideals so closely related to Romanticism: devastation, romance, nature, and subjectivity. Blake's content ambiguity is quite reflective of the idea that the creator of art is far more intuitive on its meaning than an answer. Romantic authors need only answer to themselves, it seems.

Response to Reading Fourteen

Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students chapter eleven provides a very interesting examination of memory, in terms of both ancient and modern expectations.

One of the more interesting points made by the book, I believe, is that memory is far less narrative than we initially think. The book gives the example of essay composition. It reminds us that we must remember commonplaces and argumentative strategies, how we went about composing other pieces of discourse, and grammar and spelling information. No matter how many notes an individual may take, much of these elements are based entirely on memorization. Writing cannot occur without some rudimentary experience.

"[T]hese days, people tend to think of their memories as narratives of their past lives, rather than as carefully organized depositories of common knowledge. Despite this belief, our memories are stocked with many things besides narratives of our experiences..." (Crowley and Hawhee 380).

It is certainly a unique thing that memory is so all-encompassing, and yet we forget the most nuanced abilities of memory. Processes are just as important as narrative descriptions, if not more. Case in point: rhetoric. If we cannot remember the steps involved in document creation, then rhetoric cannot exist. No degree of extraneous experience will be able to explain the formulation of rhetoric; this is a purely methodical and systematic memorization process. "[P]eople do not begin composing as though nothing has ever happened to them or as though they remember nothing of their past lives" (Crowley and Hawhee 380).

Response to Reading Thirteen

I have long been interested in European history, especially the Age of Enlightenment. The Rhetorical Tradition provides an outstanding description of this revolutionary time in history. Therefore, I will describe what I believe to be the most extraordinary and pivotal results of the Enlightenment.

"The period in European history from the seventeenth through the eighteenth centuries -- the period known as the Enlightenment -- is marked by revolution in science, philosophy, and politics" (Bizzell and Herzberg 791).

The Age of Enlightenment is one of those token periods in history; I would not doubt that every student has studied this era at least twice during their academic careers, if not more. Of course, there is a reason for this excessive exploration of a period in history. The Enlightenment fundamentally changed the ways in which society viewed the world. And not for just a brief period; rather, the Enlightenment altered life in ways that would have forever, undeniable influence.

There were changes to science, philosophy and politics. In terms of science, scientists shifted experiments to meet requirements of the scientific (experimental) method and sought new discoveries that would better explain questions within our physical world. Science became investigative as never better. Philosophy changed in that philosophers began to look for the great connection between humans; what, they asked, was universal amongst all human populations. Additionally, they sought answer to questions of psychological, which worked alongside advancements in science. Finally, politics evolved to reflect increasing demand for democracies. Old orders lost credence, giving way to a standardized and seemingly natural order of democracy. "These vast social and intellectual changes inevitably affected the ways that language, communication, and rhetoric were understood during this crucial period" (Bizzell and Herzberg 791).

Logic was one of the most identifiable changes during the Enlightenment. As experimental science took root, logic became an infinitely important component of rhetoric; arguments now required scientific, fact-based evidence. Additionally, as the study of psychology offered reasoning and imagination as natural human capacities, poetry and art became intertwined with rhetoric. Creativity was considered equally important as pure argumentation. This was one of the first times in history that storytelling was deemed acceptable formats of rhetoric. I consider this quite interesting, as the Enlightenment is often synonymous with science and art generally represents the opposite of this.

Response to Reading Twelve

While reading Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students, I was most drawn to a subsection in chapter ten called "Figures of Thought." I found this particular section of interest because it describes how certain figures of thought are applied. Essentially, it made the point quite clear as to how I could use figures of thought in my own writing. It is one thing to understand a concept, but another point entirely to understand usability. I appreciated that this subsection showed how figures of thought can be used according to very specific situations. As a very analytical person, I do not like ambiguity, which this subsection had none of.

Figures of thought are "the most rhetorical of the ornaments of style" (Crowley and Hawhee 348). Basically, this means that figures of thought can function as proofs (called sententia) and that they can establish ethos or pathos. For the purposes of Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students, they focused entirely on the sententia element.

As I was most interested in the applicability of various figures of thought, I would like to focus my own analysis on three of these components:

1. Figures of Thought That Enhance Ethos
Figures of thought that enhance ethos are a particular group of figures that allow rhetoricians to draw attention to a manipulation in the flow of dialogue. Hesitations, interruptions, attack from opponents, and apologetic comments are all styles of figures that enhance ethos. In drawing attention to these, rhetors help to relate to their audience; natural human behaviors make an audience feel more comfortable with the lecturer.

The rhetorical question is, in fact, part of this group. Rhetorical questions are incredibly dominant on today's rhetorical platform. Asking a question to get an answer is not a figure; instead, the rhetor wants the audience to internalize the question. Rhetors like to ask these questions as they inspire unconscious audience participation. Rhetorical questions are only valid if the answer is blatant to everyone in the audience; otherwise, a certain degree of uncomfortableness may occur as people do not want to feel out of the loop. "The only effective rhetorical question, after all, is one to which the answer is so obvious that everyone, including the audience, can supply its answer. This figure depends for its effect on an audience's feeling that it is participating in the construction of the argument" (Crowley and Hawhee 349).

2. Figures of Thought That Involve Audience
Figures of thought that involve audience participation include suspension, paradox, oxymoron, and litotes or understatements. Suspension is when the rhetor raises expectations that something bad will be discussed, then mentions something entirely worse. In this way, the argument is sensationalized and thereby easily remembered. Paradox, the opposite of suspension, is when the rhetor raises expectations and then trivializes it. The next figure in this group is oxymoron, a common theme in everyday conversations. An oxymoron is the use of contradictory terms, usually an adjective and noun. Finally, litotes are figures in which the rhetor diminishes some feature of the situation that is quite obvious to the audience. Essentially, neglecting an important component.

3. Figures of Thought That Arouse Emotion
Figures of thought that arouse emotion require the most innovation on behalf of the rhetor. "This group of figures requires more inventiveness from a rhetor than any other, since their persuasive quality depends upon skill in creating convincing fictions" (Crowley and Hawhee 352). Figures of thought that arouse emotion include personification, irony, and ethopoeia. Many of these terms seem more remnant of a creative writing class than rhetoric, though they are, in fact, story-like figures. Just as sensationalizing or neglectfulness can ignite audience interest, so can vivid, imaginative stories. Rhetors use these figures to draw attention to their arguments through sensory descriptions; they want to audience to feel as if they are part of the story.

Development of Printing Press

Development of the Printing Press:

Societal Impacts and Evolution of Rhetoric

Rhetoric always seems to be in a constant state of change, albeit a very gradual evolution over time. For example, rhetoric began as an oral tradition, transitioned to handwritten texts, moved to wood block printing, eventually utilized Gutenberg’s printing press, and is now adopting digitalization. Of all stages of development, however, the printing press is likely the most significant factor to consider when analyzing the evolution of rhetoric. Prior to the printing press, document creation consisted of almost entirely handwritten manuscripts. “Written by hand, the production of even a single page was an arduous and time consuming task. Books were expensive and only very popular texts of universal appeal were likely to be printed” (“End of Europe’s”). Essentially, rhetoric was inaccessible to the general public. Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the mid-fifteenth century provided moveable-type that eliminated a great degree of labor and allowed for documents to be printed on a mass scale in far less time. Therein, written rhetoric became available to nearly everyone. The fields of education, science, and publishing were fundamentally and forever changed by Gutenberg’s innovation. The printing press revolutionized rhetoric by standardizing education, enabling scientific achievements, and developing a formal system of authorship.

Arguably, the most substantial societal result of the printing press was an increase in overall literacy and educational opportunities. With the development of the printing press, there was a complete shift in the way that information was distributed. Society evolved from that with an oral tradition to a more literary-focused culture. In essence, there was a complete transformation in accessibility to rhetoric. Rhetoric was previously a community experience; however, individuals engaged more commonly in silent and personal readings after printing developed. Education was forced to change with the introduction of the printing press as well. More students could be provided the opportunity for formal education as printed books cost far less than illuminated manuscripts. Schooling became more of an expectation post-printing press. Information became available to the masses like never before and resulted in literacy becoming much more of a necessity. Additionally, the printing press helped to foster reliability in academics. By standardizing knowledge, education in general was thereby standardized. “Printing drove the simplification of written language. Increasing literacy and the globalization of reading led to standardization in spelling and punctuation…” (Arcas and Fairhall 997). More or less, the development of the printing press enabled more individuals to read as well as gain formal educations. Through this innovation, rhetoric began to demand reliability and consistency like never before.

In terms of a strictly European analysis, the printing press worked to fundamentally change society’s style of argumentation. Emphasis shifted from emotional to empirical and quantifiable arguments. This is highly emphasized within the education system. For the most part, all students were provided the same texts with which to work, thus enabling progress to be achieved. Knowledge moved at a more rapid rate as individuals and professors could dependably build upon the works of their predecessors with less fear of inaccuracy. The printing press helped to eliminate confusion and inconsistencies that had previously existed. Education through provable scientific observation, experimentation, and written documentation took precedence through printing. In many ways, this is consistent with modern academics as well.

The printing press also directly helped to fuel the development of the scientific revolution. While early handwritten documents focused on imagery and aesthetic quality, printed texts were far more “wordy.” The significance of the text was its content, not appearance. This signaled a transition from an imaginative, artistic culture to an analytical one. Audience became less engaged with the metaphor and flowery language of the past; instead, they sought provable and scientific evidence. Oral tradition was dependent on captivating the audience with eloquent words and stylized delivery, whereas published texts did not have to rely on similar “smoke and mirrors” tactics. Facts could be more easily and effectively distributed through text. Rhetoric, therefore, had to adapt to these new societal needs. The logos of previous centuries evolved from law- and religious-mindedness to scientific approaches.

In conjunction with society’s desire for logical proofs, scientists began to take full advantage of the printing press. While many scientists had previously been left isolated, printing allowed their discoveries to be accessed by the masses. “It is difficult to imagine the Enlightenment and the scientific revolutions of the next centuries without this [printing press] technology, which allowed ideas to be disseminated quickly, broadly and reliably” (Arcas and Fairhall 997). One might argue that an increase in education also enabled this societal transition; perhaps a simultaneous or codependent relationship existed between the two. Regardless, the printing press provided science an opportunity to flourish. It effectively changed the style of rhetoric to be one of evidentiary support and analytics. In large part, modern rhetoric focuses on similar approaches as well.

One of the most significant impacts of the printing press was the concept of authorship. Whereas traditional, pre-printing documents focused more on the content of the document, the development of printing allowed for author and timeliness to become important. With the consistency of print, there was less risk in attaching an author’s name and date of publication to a text. For example, pre-printing press documents were recorded by hand from oral presentations or lectures. A great deal of inconsistency arose from this style of document creation; therefore, the true author was seemingly irrelevant. Often times, the recorder did not even list the original author. Until the printing press provided for identical replication of texts over time, there was little importance in authorship. “Prior to the invention of the printing press, authors necessarily relied upon manual copyists to reproduce their works, and this technological limitation had [substantial] consequences” (Cotter 325). In essence, the innovation of printing press worked to establish present-day, formal expectations of the rhetorical devices ethos and kairos.

Ethos describes the necessity of an author to be credible and knowledgeable in the subject matter, while kairos is indicative that an argument is only significant if approached during an appropriate and relevant time. Before the development of printing press, one had to rely on a personal experience at a lecture to assume ethos or kairos because early texts provided no such documentation. Modern rhetoric has evolved to become increasingly dependent on citation. Not only must the author be credible, but the sources that he or she has used must be as well. Without the printing press, such a clear consequence might never have been possible. Consistency in documentation was absolutely needed for the establishment of ethos and kairos; it provided the foundation for modern rhetoric that relies on fact-based, dependable logic.

In order to fully understand the consequences of Gutenberg’s printing press, one must also explore texts from that era. Two Medieval documents that seem to especially represent the effects of printing are Christine de Pizan’s “The Book of the City of Ladies” and Boethius’s “An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric.” De Pizan’s piece is particularly reflective of changing societal moods in regards to education; it also deals with expectations of womanhood, though these elements are less applicable to effects of printing press. Her argument is that women are as equally entitled to formal education as men. Prior to increased literacy rates and dramatic growth in school admittance, de Pizan’s claims would be considered outlandish. She says, “[I] realize that women have accomplished many good things and that even if evil women have done evil…the benefits accrued and still accruing because of good women – particularly the wise and literary ones and those educated in the natural sciences – outweigh the evil” (544). De Pizan argues that men are not thinking reasonably when prohibiting female family members from receiving education. She relies a great deal on logos, or logical proofs, to persuade her audience; this is a rhetorical element perfected because of printing.

In the essay “An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric,” Boethius metaphorically compares rhetoric to the scientific method. Being that post-print society was highly concerned with science and fact-based logic, this comparison fit quite well with society’s focus. Boethius describes how rhetoric is like a hypothesis, and involves five necessary components. Just as with the steps of the scientific method, a missing element of rhetoric prevents the whole process from working. Boethius explains this, “Rhetoric has five parts: invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. They are referred to as parts because if an orator lacks any one of them, then his use of [rhetoric] is imperfect” (489). Boethius’s entire argument is laid out logically, with each component of rhetoric building from the last. This organization is highly demonstrative of the printing press’s effect on society, as it resulted in a far more analytical culture.

Development of the printing press was likely the most substantial cause of revolutionizing rhetoric to date. Gutenberg’s printing press resulted in skyrocketed literacy rates, new education policies, significant scientific advancement, and importance of authorship. In many ways, it fundamentally changed the lives of everyone. Society had to approach the world in dramatic new ways. “When the itinerant thinker Johannes Gensfleich Gutenberg introduced his moveable-type printing press to Germany sometime in the mid-fifteenth century, he had little reason to foresee the remote consequences of his invention…” (Cotter 324). As contemporary society moves into an age of digitalization, it begs the question of whether or not computerized technology will be the next big development. Perhaps we are too connected to the revolution, just as Gutenberg was, that we are unable to see the true significance of digitalization. Interestingly enough, communication patterns and rhetoric styles are already showing signs of moderate change due to modern technology. Being that the results of the printing press can still be felt today, almost six centuries later, one can only wonder if our innovations will be nearly as significant.

Works Cited

Arcas, Blaise Aguera and Adrienne Fairhall. “Archaeology of Type.” Nature 411.6841 (2001): 997. EBSCO. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.

Boethius. “An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric.” The Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 488-491. Print.

Cotter, Thomas. “Gutenberg’s Legacy: Copyright, Censorship, and Religious Pluralism.” California Law Review 91.2 (2003): 323-92. EBSCO. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.

De Pizan, Christine. “The Book of the City of Ladies.” The Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 544-551. Print.

“End of Europe’s Middle Ages: The Impact of the Printing Press.” Applied History. University of Calgary, 2000. Web. 23 Oct. 2010.

Response to Reading Eleven

I found Thomas Wilson's "The Arte of Rhetorique" to be a very interesting read. Wilson's language is, quite obviously, very different from Americanized English. I have very little exposure to traditional English composition, except sporadically in classes or on my week-long trip to England several years ago.

According to The Rhetorical Tradition, "Wilson's rhetoric went through eight editions and was the most popular rhetoric in English in sixteenth-century England" (700). Acknowledging his success as a rhetorician, I believe Wilson's style to be a very accurate example of what traditional English composition sounded like. He was also the first Englishman to publish a book on rhetoric that described the creative process. In many ways, this is more of a handbook than anything else as it describes invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery; these are, as I am sure most people know, the five parts of classical rhetoric.

"The Arte of Rhetorique" describes "Five thynges to be considreed in an Oratour," which are the five parts of classical rhetoric. Though we know them as invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery, Wilson calls them invencion of matter, disposicion of the same, elocucion, memorie, and utteraunce.

Wilson, in a distinctly sixteenth-century British diction, says of these elements: "Anyone that will largely handle any matter, muste fasten his mynde, first of all upon these five especial poynctes that folowe, and learne theim every one" (707).

In somewhat of a side note, I find it absolutely remarkable that such different spellings can be understandable to the modern reader. For example, "mynde, learne, theim, muste" are present-day "mind, learn, them, must." How fascinating! I am quite curious why word spelling has evolved so much in just a few centuries, considering that sentence structure and word meanings are nearly identical.

Now, back to the book. Wilson does a very interesting job describing what each of the five parts are. Interestingly, I found the definitions near identical to my present understanding.

1. Invention (Invencion)
According to Wilson, invention is searching for truth. He suggests that it is the attempt to prove a cause and seek the truth. Logic, says Wilson, is key to invention.

2. Arrangement (Disposicion)
Wilson believes that arrangement is the settlement or order of things; essentially, organization. He states, "But yet what helpeth it though we can finde good reasons, and knowe howe to place theim..." (708). Wilson declares a problem that every rhetor experiences: how to best organize an essay while also choosing the most meaningful evidence possible.

3. Style (Elocucion)
Style, Wilson says, is using the most apt and eloquent words possible to prove an argument. His definition is concise, yet entirely accurate. An argument is only as good as the words used to describe it.

4. Memory (Memorie)
Memory is a slightly forgotten component of contemporary rhetoric; as discussed in class, we have far less use for it today. In any case, Wilson argues that memory must be cherished. He believes that if rhetoric is not worthy of memorization, then it had no merit in the first place. It is hard to imagine that the qualifier for rhetoric centuries ago was the desirability of memorization.

5. Delivery (Utteraunce)
Wilson says, "Utteraunce therefore is a framyng of the voyce, countenaunce, and gesture, after a comely manner" (708). In essence, Wilson describes how delivery is vital in the final persuasion of an argument. Without all components working together -- which is essentially the basis for delivery -- then no argument can be justified. It takes all parts to complete the rhetorical package, so to speak.

Response to Reading Ten

Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students chapter eight describes logical and ethical appeals. I was most interested in a subsection titled "Data."

In this section, authors discuss the necessity of facts to be reputable and from a qualified source. In addition, they ought to be arrived through some standard empirical procedure. Furthermore, the information must be interpreted accurately; unfortunately, this can often be the most difficult component to get right. Finally, they should be consistent across most -- if not all -- reputable sources. Authors use the example of movies to highlight that "true" information can be hard to come by:

"In recent years, it has become fashionable to determine the quality of a film by the level of its box office receipts...The amounts of money made by the movies [are] statements of fact. But such facts are often used to support an inference that is not always warranted: movies that make lots of money must be very good" (Crowley and Hawhee 279).

On the list of top grossing movies is Titanic -- though we now know this to be Avatar. When compared with lists from other sources, Titanic is not even on the list of best movies of all time. One list is from IMDB, a popular movie database, and lists a poll of everyday moviegoers. The second list is from The American Film Institute and claims to have compiled their list from "a blue-ribbon panel of leaders from across the film community."

Interestingly, these two lists are not even close to the same, let alone reflective of box office success. The experts' list only has two movies that were from the 250 top-grossing-film category for the U.S.; essentially, this means none from the list of top ten movies. The experts' list also only duplicates three from the IMDB movie list. The IMDB list includes only one movie from the top-ten-grossing-film category.

"Like all statements of fact, box-office receipts make sense only when they are contextualized within some network of interpretation" (Crowley and Hawhee 281).

In general, this section reminded me to take information at face value; it is not true until I can find enough evidence. I must do a thorough, investigative analysis before taking data as truthful.

Response to Reading Nine

For a slight change of pace, I would like to discuss Peter Ramus the person not Peter Ramus's rhetoric. I will be exploring his biography, as opposed to his essay "Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian."

(It is seeming somewhat monotonous describing just rhetoric for the past few weeks...)

The Rhetorical Tradition does an outstanding job discussing the life of Ramus; in fact, he was quite an interesting character. Peter Ramus, also known as Pierre de la Ramee, lived from 1515 to 1572. In just 57 years of life, Ramus had an incredible impact on rhetoric that would be felt for centuries to come.

Ramus was born to a poor family and, like many impoverished children, worked his way through school as a servant to wealthier students. At age 8, he went to Paris to study Latin. In 1536, he earned a master's degree in art; it is often wondered how he pulled off the feat, being that his thesis absolutely enraged many of the professors. Ramus had written a thesis on why Aristotle was useless. Upon earning his degree, Ramus became a college professor himself. It is believed that he was a beloved and charismatic teacher, as he soon attracted a vast following. In 1543, Ramus published two works: one controversial piece attacked Aristotle and classic rhetorical stylings, the other called for an entirely new intellectual method.

The books were condemned by many in academia, even involving French king Charles I. Professors of medicine, law, and theology all called for a ban on Ramus's book and Ramus himself. They asked that he be forbidden from teaching, which Charles I gladly obliged. In many cases, Ramus's books were actually burned. It became his lifelong challenge to defend himself. On many cases, his defenses were public orations. Despite a royal ban on his ideas, Ramus continued to publish for many years. His intellectual partner, Omer Talon, collaborated on many of these works.

Ramus got a break in 1547 when Henry II became king and Charles of Lorraine because Cardinal Guise. Lorraine was a former classmate of Ramus's and gladly interceded on his behalf, thereby lifting the restrictions on his teaching. Despite incessant publishing of controversial books as well as continuous spats with other professors, Ramus continued to be promoted. Eventually, he became the dean of one college. It is believed that he published more than 750 works; this is an absolutely staggering and almost unbelievable number.

At the heart of Ramus's ideals was the belief that reason did not need to be taught. He believed that Aristotle's teachings were useless because reason was an innate human ability. "[T]ime spent mastering the classical languages and poring over ancient texts was so much time wasted" (Bizzell and Herzberg 676).

Response to Reading Eight

The Rhetorical Tradition includes an essay called "The Principles of Letter Writing." This anonymous essay was written during the height of Medieval Rhetoric and describes the principles and composition of letters; the name is an accurate representation of the content.

I actually found this topic of particular interest as I am learning the principles of business letter writing in another English class. I enjoyed the mental comparison between the letter styles described in "The Principles of Letter Writing" and contemporary expectations of a technical document.

One of the most fundamental, albeit obvious, observations is that letters in Medieval Europe were handwritten and therefore required less formatting standards. Modern letters must follow the format requirements subject to digitalization. Present-day letters must have consistent font, size, headings, spacing, and borders. In fact, most business letters even have decorative letterheads that must be consistent across an entire corporation. I wonder what Medieval rhetors might have thought of such finite, relatively obscurely defined, rules.

Another point of interest was the content differences between now and then. Now, we are encouraged to make our letters as quick, yet thorough as possible. In English 402, we are told to refrain from embedded prose and unnecessary details. Essentially, business letters should be highly condensed and concise. There is to be an introduction, short body, and conclusion only. If you write more than is required of the information, then others will not read it. Email has allowed communication to take place in an almost unmanageable degree. There is, quite simply, no way to read everything that is sent to a person in one day. Modern day rhetoric has made skimming acceptable, if not absolutely necessary. Therefore, in order to avoid missed information, people must condense their letters. My English 402 professor often says, "No one wants to read anything that you write." I do not know that it is that they do not want to read it, I just think it is because they logistically cannot read everything you write them. There is too much being sent in one day to capture every finite detail!

This modern level of constant communication is a far cry from handwritten letters of Medieval times. It took such effort to write a letter that the audience would dwell on every word. It was unlikely that an individual would receive more than one lengthy letter in a day; therefore, they had more time to appreciate it. I enjoyed the part in "The Principles of Letter Writing" that described content expectations. "There are, in fact, five parts of a letter: the Salutation, the Securing of Goodwill, the Narration, the Petition, and the Conclusion" ("Principles..." 497). I cannot imagine what it would be like if these expectations existed today; it would take hours just to get through one day's emails, let alone the hours it would take to send your own emails. Yikes, comes to mind. In any case, I really enjoy reading centuries-old letters as they are so beautifully and eloquently written. Letters of Medieval times are certainly less rushed, therefore seem more meaningful, than contemporary letters.

Response to Reading Seven

In order to fully understand the consequences of Gutenberg's printing press, one must also explore texts from that era. One Medieval document that seems to especially represent the effects of printing is Boethius's "An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric."

In the essay "An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric," Boethius metaphorically compares rhetoric to the scientific method. Being that post-print society was highly concerned with science and fact-based logic, this comparison fit quite well with society's focus. Boethius describes how rhetoric is like a hypothesis, and involves five necessary components. Just as with the steps of the scientific method, a missing element of rhetoric prevents the whole process from working. Boethius explains this, "Rhetoric has five parts: invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. They are referred to as parts because if an orator lacks any one of them, then his use of [rhetoric] is imperfect" (489). Boethius's entire argument is laid out logically, with each component of rhetoric building from the last. This organization is highly demonstrative of the printing press's effect on society, as it resulted in a far more analytical culture.

The printing press directly helped to fuel the development of the scientific revolution. While early handwritten documents focused on imagery and aesthetic quality, printed texts were fare more "wordy." The significance of the text was its content, not appearance. This signaled a transition from an imaginative, artistic culture to an analytical one. Audiences became less engaged with the metaphor and flowery language of the past; instead, they sought provable and scientific evidence. Oral tradition was dependent on captivating the audience with eloquent words and stylized delivery, whereas published texts did not have to rely on similar "smoke and mirrors" tactics. Facts could be more easily and effectively distributed through text. Rhetoric, therefore, had to adapt to these new societal needs. The logos of previous centuries evolved from law- and religious-mindedness to scientific approaches. "An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric" proves an incredible examples of this transition.

Response to Reading Six

Chapter six in Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students focused on ethical proofs, or the rhetorical element "ethos." As taught in nearly all beginning-level college English classes, there are three rhetorical devices: ethos, logos, and pathos. Ethos is, in my opinion, one of the most important devices. Ethos refers to proofs that rely on the rhetor's expertise or reputation about the topic in which their argument is based. While it was established in early Classical Rhetoric, I believe this element to be most important for contemporary audiences.

"As early as the fourth century B.C.E., Greek teachers of rhetoric gave suggestions about how a person's character (Greek ethos) could be put to persuasive uses, and rhetorical theorists continued to discuss the sues of ethical proofs throughout the history of ancient rhetoric" (Crowley and Hawhee 195).

While the contemporary analysis of ethos is quite reflective of the earliest methods of analysis, I think that it carries more weight nowadays in addition to some changes in meaning. Early rhetoricians had to have credence to their arguments or no one would attend their lectures. Additionally, ancient criteria were far more character-based as opposed to knowledge-based. An individual's "goodness" meant a great deal centuries ago. Essentially, personality could go a long way. And quite interestingly, early rhetors were far more prideful in descriptions of themselves, often giving ethical credibility to themselves. This is an interesting concept for modern audiences, who condone comments that a too boastful. In general, present-day definitions of ethos can be quite varied from ancient versions.

"The modern term 'personality' does not quite capture all the senses of the ancient Greek term ethos, since it carried moral overtones and since, for the Greek a character was created by a person's habits and reputation rather than be her experiences" (Crowley and Hawhee 195).

In a period with such accessibility to technology, rhetoric has become the communication of everyday individuals. Anyone with slight computer understanding, literacy, and an ability to type can be a rhetor. And, anyone with similar knowledge can be the audience. In the world of internet, ethos as become remarkably important. Individuals cannot trust that this everyday rhetor is actually knowledgeable of the topic; in some cases, they might completely lead you astray. Ethos demands that the author have experience or their rhetoric is relatively meaningless. Whereas Classical Rhetoric focused on character, Modern Rhetoric focuses on experience. In order to select the most truthful argument in a "tower of babble," so to speak, audiences must rely on ethos.

Imitatio

Imitatio Assignment Reflection

As a Professional Writing and Rhetoric major, I am not limited in my exposure to ancient Greek rhetoric. From Sophistic essays to Platonic dialogues, professors have continually emphasized the significance that these lectures have in our modern communications. To persuade an audience, the writer must have appeals of logos, pathos, or ethos. And almost all assigned essays involve the rhetorical analysis of such themes. I now know this to be a rather narrow examination of rhetoric, however. Despite working with ancient Greek works previously, I have never been challenged with such an assignment. I had to not only fully understand the text, but also be able to imitate the dialogue and modernize the content. There was more than just an analysis of appeals as I am used to; I had to have a complete knowledge of how the rhetorical appeals were presented and why, the style and voice used, as well as know all the complexities and nuances within the text. In creating and presenting an imitatio of Plato’s “The Apology,” I not only faced a great challenge in regard to the material itself, but also learned a great deal about the relationship between ancient and modern rhetoric during the process.

When given the task of selecting an ancient Greek text to imitate, I was absolutely overwhelmed. The choices, it seemed, were endless. Plato, Aristotle, Gorgias, and Socrates immediately came to mind, which helped to narrow down the choices a bit. Unfortunately for me, these superstar rhetoricians are not low on materials to examine. After reading text upon text, I was finally enthralled with Plato’s interpretation of the trial of Socrates, called “The Apology.” Along with my interest in the content of the piece, I was equally frustrated with the length. We were assigned a four-minute, two-page speech. Condensing the thirty-page “Apology” to this limit was absolutely impossible. My greatest challenge during this experience was selecting a portion of the text that I most wanted to recreate because I found much of “The Apology” to be quite captivating with the potential for great imitation. But because each section was so unique from the others, I could only afford to focus on one.

Eventually I decided to modernize the material with a reference to popular culture: the recent trial of Lindsey Lohan. This allowed me to better focus on the goal I wanted to accomplish with my imitatio. I quickly realized that the best part of “The Apology” to accommodate my newly decided content was the fifteen-page introduction, “Defense of Socrates.” So from there, I begrudgingly had to eliminate even more text. The process of deciding which material to keep or cut was incredibly difficult; I could see opportunity for strong imitation and argument in all of “Defense of Socrates.” Eventually, I overcame this challenge by keeping sections of text from the introduction, body, and conclusion as opposed to one large part from just one of these parts. In this way, my own piece had a fluid and complete argument; I wanted it to be able to standalone and believe that I successfully accomplished this goal.

In addition to learning better editing techniques, in terms of text choices, the imitatio assignment also allowed me to explore the ways in which ancient rhetoric influences modern rhetoric. Closely working with Plato’s “The Apology” helped to define for me the extent to which ancient rhetors’ ways translate to today. It seems that most contemporary publications rely on pathos as a means of persuading their audience. This is especially true with entertainment news that defends or accuses celebrities of indecent behavior. In examining any recent celebrity scandal, for example Lindsey Lohan’s pleas for understanding for her drug and alcohol addiction, one can always find a slew of pathetic appeals to the public. In analyzing “The Apology,” I learned this also to be the case with ancient texts. Socrates continually defends his character through emotional appeals to the jurors. He wants them to believe in the “injustice” of his trial because he is truly a “good” man. Today, just as in 350 B.C., the rhetor wants to earn the audience’s sympathy for the sole intention of gaining their support.

Another common thread shared by ancient and modern rhetoric is the appeal of logos. To be more specific, they share a kind of attack on ethical appeals through logical argumentation. While I had frequently seen this technique in contemporary rhetoric, I had never observed it to be the case in Greek works. In fact, it was one of the most interesting and unexpected commonalities I found during my deconstruction of “The Apology.” In order to defend themselves, ancient rhetors such as Plato would attack the credibility of their accusers. “The Apology,” for example, begins with Socrates’s claims that those who slander his name have ulterior motives and cannot actually support any of their accusations with provable evidence. He uses logical proofs to substantiate his personal claims and refute others. Today, this method remains constant. Rather than just prove their argument with logic, people also discredit their opposition. Such is the case with Lohan, who blames a substantial amount of her troubles on exaggeration from the media. In effect, this technique works to shift blame from the accused to the accusers. She cites numerous publications that mislead the public with unsupported evidence, thereby proving her accusations against them. Previously, I believed that unwarranted criticism toward others was a cultural and contemporary behavior, though now I realize that it is a centuries-old rhetorical tradition. No single proof is enough until the accusers are proven wrong as well.

Without question, my greatest struggle throughout the imitatio assignment involved decisions about material. Many times, it felt as though I had too many great texts to choose from. It was a challenge to eliminate entire essays at first and, later, individual parts of “The Apology” because I saw incredible potential in all of them as sources of imitation. But through the process of hyper-analyzing all of the materials for an editing requirement, I was able to establish a deeper understanding of the content. In selecting such a rich and lengthy piece, I forced myself to look beyond surface approaches of purely logos, ethos, and pathos. Never before had I been so able to make educated comparisons between ancient and modern rhetoric. In truth, I learned that there are far more similarities than differences; perhaps, we are not as rhetorically evolved as we might like to think. I thoroughly enjoyed this element of the imitatio assignment as it challenged me to deeply engage with a subject that, at times, can become somewhat monotonous.

Imitatio of Plato’s The Apology

(Inspired by the recent trial of Lindsey Lohan.)

Citizens of America, what are your thoughts after hearing the outlandish accusations of the media? Day after day, I am forced to confront tabloid rumors. It is difficult, even for me, not to be persuaded by their elaborate web of lies. At times, I nearly forget who I really am. But ladies and gentlemen, I must inform you that almost none of what they speak is truthful. I plead with you to listen to what I have to say. I will argue honestly and justly against the falsehoods that have cast a shadow over my name. Before you judge me and end my career, I know it only to be fair that you acknowledge my request.

I have had more accusers than I can name over the years. From bloggers and magazine writers to my own father, I have been labeled an evildoer. But I have come to fear most those that perpetuate rumors via circulation of their dishonest publications. For years, writers have neglected the truth for the purpose of a better story. Many of these slanderers I have never even spoken to, yet they continually disgrace and defame my character. And for an impressionable public, these lies are easily accepted. Everyone always expects the worst of me due to the lies they’ve been taught to believe. So as I defend myself, I beg of you to challenge the assumption that everything you read is truth because I promise, with complete honesty, that this is not the case.

According to entertainment news writers, I am a drug addicted, has-been actress who corrupts our nation’s youth. I have never pretended not to have my share of struggles. I mean, one has to look no further than my several drug convictions and stints in rehab. But let us for one minute examine the rest of the nation; I bet that each of us knows an addict in our own lives. I am not alone in my disease. Perhaps, I should be commended for my continual and persistent efforts to get clean. Instead, the media makes a public mockery of my very private battles. Not once have I pretended to know all the answers or reveled in my “role model status.” Accusers have claimed that I behave irresponsibly for the rewards of publicity, but there is no evidence to support this. I am just as foolish as the next man and am conscious of my limitations. But for some reason, I have the unique disadvantage that my faults will be broadcast to the world.

In defense of the accusations that I corrupt the lives of the youth, I challenge you to find someone who believes that I have, single-handedly, ruined their lives. Or even a mother, father, or sibling who believes that my actions have definitively caused their relative pain. If these persons can be found, I justly deserve your punishment. But I know this not to be the case. No matter how impressionable the public, no single person has the power to define another person’s life. My accusers were sorely mistaken in these claims and I am appalled by their ignorance.

So why, you ask, should my testimony be accepted as truth? For the purpose of justice, I remind you. My accusers have ulterior motives: the nastier the story, the higher the profit. Their statements are not guided by truth. Their bottom-line is the cause of my suffering. Do not let their exaggerated tales cloud your judgment. Please do not let my promising career just fall to the wayside. Friends, I am only human. I am not immune to errors. But I must be given the opportunity to learn and grow from my mistakes, not be defined by them.