Before defining “rhetoric” I think it is important to understand how to pronounce the word. I don’t know about you all, but as for myself, I despise the proper pronunciation keys with all the upside-down letters and strange markings. For those of us who can read and understand English, rhetoric is pronounced: Red-o-rick. I thought that it was pronounced like “rhetorical” which is: reh-Torr-eh-cal. I can say I have learned something from this class. But now that we know how to pronounce the word, what does it mean? Some define rhetoric as, “... the study of effective speaking and writing.” Others say it is the art of persuasive speaking or writing. I, on the other hand, define rhetoric as the ability to convey your thoughts effectively to others via speaking as well as writing. I feel that the other two definitions are trying to be fancy with words like art and study. The definitions are vague as well as too formal. Rhetoric is not just about persuasion either. Yes, persuasiveness is a large factor but it does not encompass the entirety of the word’s definition. I will agree that being able to correctly argue a point (this blog post is an example of an argument) is crucial to writing. Being able to stay organized and concentrated in such argument is where rhetoric comes into play, yet it is not all the way defined. Just the mere skill to speak and have other readers/listeners follow and understand where your are coming from is rhetoric. Rhetoric is useful for everyone of all education levels because without it, readers are not able to understand and, therefore, reply to the author. If a conversation is not a possible outcome of a text, then the text serves zero purpose to have been written in the first place. Being able to see into the author’s point of view as well as knowing of his opposition is the golden ticket, if you will, to rhetoric. I find that the website brings up a wonderful analogy with the forest. However, I think being able to acquire a bird’s eye view of the forest first is a necessity before diving into it and exploring the forest. I also think by incorporating dialectic into the site is helpful. Dialectic is more or less discovering the truth behind opinions. Being able to read an author’s opinion and relate it to society’s and your own is essential and goes hand in hand rhetoric. I also like that breaking rhetoric into the five cannons is a good way to look at rhetoric and obtain a more clear understanding. I do not like how the website is laid out. To me, the layout of the website is confusing and messy. The two large columns of information on the side bars provide a lot of information but being able to navigate them is un-orthodox for a website. I know that there are different viewing options for them but that still does not change my opinion. I also think the articles, yet short, are difficult to read. They use complex vocabulary that to any lay person seems difficult. I found myself looking up many terms just to understand what the website wanted to tell me. Using good vocabulary is impressive and makes the text not appear dull but there is a point when it is too much. I think if the messages within each passage were easier to read, the website would be more effective.
Burton, Gideon. "The Forest of Rhetoric." Silva Rhetoricae. Brigham Young University, n.d. Web. 02 Sept. 2015. <http://rhetoric.byu.edu>
Is your objection to the site's use of complex vocabulary in regards to including it at all or not thoroughly explaining it? It seemed to me that most of the unfamiliar vocabulary in the site had its meaning laid out alongside it in order to allow a reader to understand those terms if they encountered them somewhere else in the future.
ReplyDelete