Our lovely
vocabulary list defined “rhetoric” as “the art of effective expression.” I think this is an adequate description if we
must limit its definition to five words.
However, the term can be defined at a much deeper level. The given definition seems too simple. The folks at BYU probably would agree with this
statement, given their extensive analysis of the subject online. For our simplified definition to hold enough
weight, in my opinion, there must be extra emphasis placed on the word “art.” A rhetorical analysis has a complex and
meaningful process to it, one that cannot be overlooked by its reader. Originally, I thought that rhetoric is dull
and unimaginative, so I did not have high hopes for the content I would be
learning. Over this past semester, I
have come to realize that this kind of expression can be beautiful and incredibly
creative if I work hard at it. There are
many different elements that comprise an exceptional rhetorical piece. When I put in the time to consider these
different aspects, I learn how to manipulate my words to produce an effective
argument. Appealing to the emotions,
logic, and character of my audience provides numerous challenges, but those
areas are necessary in order to create a sound and memorable argument. Upon the successful implementation of all
three methods of persuasive appeals, I felt the structure and organization of
my argument molds into a proactive discussion. The completion of my large rhetorical project
was extremely rewarding because I know that I learned a lot throughout the
writing process, both about my topic and about writing.
As
previously mentioned, successful and efficient rhetoric is more than mere
expression. It is a creative discussion
between a writer and his or her audience.
By appealing to my audience’s emotions, logic, and character, I have
learned to consider their thoughts on a much greater scale. Additionally, by planting naysayers in my
writing, I have learned to address the audience’s concerns in a manner that
directly considers their pathos, logos, and ethos. Furthermore, this trend toward a
discussion-like structure has helped me create more convincing and original
arguments. By presenting an opinion with
which I do not agree, I have to figure out ways to formulate a rebuttal against
it, which requires imaginative thinking in various occasions. In his book On Writing, Stephen King discusses how writing is a form of
telepathy; the writer’s thoughts are communicated through his words to his
readers, who in turn process the information and transfer those words into
their own thoughts. Previously, I only
thought of this concept in the context of creative writing. Now, I can easily see how this applies to
rhetorical analyses. Rhetoric is a discussion,
but it is a discussion without words, which is the definition of
telepathy. This notion, indirectly applied
by Stephen King (whom I consider a creative genius), stresses the creativity that
goes into formulating a rhetorical argument.
Conclusively, an original and imaginative composition is necessary to capture the
attention of the reader and convince him or her that it is relevant and to
inspire a new way of thinking. Rhetoric,
as an art form, involves both the writer and reader at a much more meaningful
level than I had previously understood. It
is a complex dialogue between the minds of two people, involving serious preparation
and design on one end and inspired thoughtful analysis on the other.
