If
asked how I define rhetoric prior to taking this course, I would have provided
a definition much like that of persuasive argumentation. However, since
learning about the other details of rhetoric, I can safely say that rhetoric is
the methodological and logical study of persuasive writing. According to Gideon
Burton from Brigham Young University, author of Silva Rhetoricae, “rhetoric studies the effectiveness of language
comprehensively, including its emotional impact (see pathos), as much as its
propositional content (see logos)” (Burton). Burton does an interesting job of explaining
the definition of rhetoric, and it is extremely interesting to see the philosophical
connection between this approach to writing. However, the end result of
rhetoric may simply focus merely on the structure and effeteness of
argumentation. As Burton states “rhetoric requires understanding a fundamental
division between what is communicated through language and how this is
communicated” (Burton).
When
crafting a piece of rhetorical writing, we must keep in mind that it is
important to remember that form and content must be approached separately, but
equally important. As I mentioned in last weeks blog post, I struggle at times
with form. Content comes easy to me because I usually never run out of
thoughts. A great section regarding form and content by Burton writes “rhetoricians
divided form and content not to place content above form, but to highlight the
interdependence of language and meaning, argument and ornament, thought and its
expression. It means that linguistic forms are not merely instrumental, but
fundamental—not only to persuasion, but to thought itself” (Burton). After
reading Burton’s statement regarding linguistic forms, I can understand how it
is important to view this approach to writing with both instrumentation and fundamentals.
Together, the two principles would allow an individual to compose a powerful
and logical thought.
The
website provided for this blog post had numerous helpful strategies and
explanations. For example, when discussing ethos, pathos, and logos the author
references Aristotle and still manages to provide a simple explanation of the
terms. I recall learning of what ethos, pathos and logos were a few years ago
during a philosophy course I had taken. Looking back, I remember them simply as
ethics, emotion, and logic. Another great thing provided by the website, is the
examples provided within each section. For example, when discussing rhetorical
ability the author provides a sample rhetorical analysis on rhetorical ability.
Although I believe that Burton did a wonderful job of composing a great resource,
I do believe that his work is without flaw.
Many of his explanations and thoughts appear as an over complicated
attempted to explain an idea. Through comparison, the book They Say/I Say, does just the opposite. The author Gerald Graff,
does a great job of knowing his target audience and their vernacular and
comprehensive ability. When reading through Silva
Rhetoricae, I had a difficult time of understand who the target audience
was. Was the writing targeting college students in undergraduate studies? Doctoral
students? Nonetheless, Burton did an excellent job of providing explanation
throughout the website.
Burton,
Gideon O. "The Forest of Rhetoric." Silva Rhetoricae:. Brigham Young University, March 2001. Web. 23
Jan. 2016.
I read the logos, pathos, and ethos section of the "rhetoric tree", and I found it to be very helpful in better understanding the meaning of rhetoric. I did not mention about the target audience, but I would have to agree with what you say about the website. It is hard to decipher who Burton is trying to reach out to. In They Say, I Say it is much easier to figure out the target audience! Great point to touch on!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the ethos, pathos, and logos section of the site as well. I too, had learned what they roughly meant a few years back and the combination of past knowledge with the examples provided really helped me further my understanding of them.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point about the difficulty of targeting the audience on Silva Rhetoricae. Perhaps this is due to the nature of the audience each is writing to. They Say, I Say is more specifically targeted towards an inexperienced academic writing audience, while the website seems to be more generally aimed at all writers. This broader reach makes it more of a challenge for the author to reach each specific type of audience within the category of 'writers', meaning Silva Rhetoricae may be a more difficult read than They Say, I Say which focuses more on inexperienced writers like ourselves. Nevertheless, the website is well organized with its forest symbolism, making it easier to navigate understanding rhetoric
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point about the difficulty of targeting the audience on Silva Rhetoricae. Perhaps this is due to the nature of the audience each is writing to. They Say, I Say is more specifically targeted towards an inexperienced academic writing audience, while the website seems to be more generally aimed at all writers. This broader reach makes it more of a challenge for the author to reach each specific type of audience within the category of 'writers', meaning Silva Rhetoricae may be a more difficult read than They Say, I Say which focuses more on inexperienced writers like ourselves. Nevertheless, the website is well organized with its forest symbolism, making it easier to navigate understanding rhetoric
ReplyDelete