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).