Ninja by day, student by night

ARCS pp. 207-217

Terminology

good character – extol your good qualities (generosity, sense of duty, justice and good faith) while weakening suspicious thoughts (charges against character, suspicions, misfortunes, or difficulties) by showing how you have overcome them (how like an interview!)

securing goodwill – consider what readers need to know, supply necessary information, and don’t treat the audience like idiots

voice – mimicking the relation between two people

distance – representing the degree of social and physical distance existing between people

intimate distance – closer identification, more persuasive potential, more attitude

formal distance – less identification, less persuasive potential, more formal

grammatical person – affects voice and distance through three types, first person, second person and third person

first person – a person or persons referring to themselves as “I” or “we”, or “We” (the royal we), speaking directly to the audience, more informal than third person

second person – a person addressing the audience as “you”, like they are speaking directly to the audience in an instructional way

third person – a person doesn’t address the audience or mention themselves, only discusses a subject or subjects

Commonplaces

Good things are meant to last

Red sky at night, sailor’s delight; red sky at morning, sailor’s warning

Composing to learn

Short topic today, grammatical person is fairly simple to follow, it makes sense that a person chooses how they want to start a relationship with the audience by their grammatical voice.  We use different voices all the time, when we speak to people one on one, or in a group, in advertisements, and in technical areas.  Different cultures use this as well, and of course royalty use it a lot to show that they are a bigger entity than their royal person.

Questions

None for this one, pretty standard

ARCS pp. 195-207

Terminology

maxims – wise sayings or proverbs

signs – physical facts or real events that can be classified as symptoms to something else (a connection between an event and what leads up to it)

panegyric (encomium) – discourse or praise of a person or thing (eulogy)

invective – used in politics a lot, a discourse that blames or abuses something, or someone

character – pattern of behavior or personality found in an individual or group, moral strength, self-discipline

ethical proof – rely on community assessment’s of a rhetor’s character or reputation

Commonplaces

Everyone deserves a fresh start

A computer for every child

Composing to learn

I thought it was interesting that the persuasiveness of a rhetor is based on his or her personal habits, if they behaved in a moral fashion.  The book mentions that contemporary rhetors are still held to a moral standard, but the standards are based on different ideas about what is moral.  Still, I can’t help but be a bit pessimistic about whether the majority of rhetors were that moral, even if all it meant that people perceived them as moral people.  I’d have to say that I go with the Greek’s thoughts about ethos, that there are two types, the invented and the situated ethos.  It would be easy to create an invented ethos, but it might be harder to use outside of a specific instance.  I think of people who might be regular people but stand up for a cause because they believe in something, and that belief makes others feel that the person is persuasive in that situation.  The situated ethos is much harder to do because it is something that is built up over time, based on what a person does.  I think that’s why it is valued more, because it is much harder to maintain an ethos for so long.  I still think people can pretend for a while and do it long enough to create a situated ethos, but I think in the end it comes out, especially in a time where it is really hard to get away with things (because telling everyone about the bad things you did with the “bad person” can make you famous and/or rich).

Questions

Invented ethos is still blurry…creating an image of yourself for the audience is okay for rhetorical purposes?  It says in the book that if you follow Aristotle’s rules, it should be okay:

1. don’t draw the right conclusions (not prepared, or dumb)
2. You know the right answer, but hide it (unethical)
3. You know the right answer, but give another answer (super unethical)

ARCS pp. 171-186

Terminology

rhetorical example – any particular can be classified, and has the distinguishing features of the class it belongs to.

inductive argument – convert a deductive argument into an inductive one by listing the arguments, then list the major premise at the end

brief example – mentioning a specific instance that represents a class

extended example – use a specific instance and then establish its class by using multiple examples

fictional example – fables, analogies, examples that are not based on real events.  They work best if the fable is known and liked by the audience, or if they give the audience a moral or a generalized result.

fable – a fictional story with a moral or some sort of generalized “this is what happens when you do that”

analogy – comparing hypothetical examples with each other

simile – comparing two like instances that work

contraries – comparing two unlike instances that work

Commonplaces

In God we trust

Liberty and justice for all

Do no evil

Curly hair is unprofessional

Composing to learn

I was thinking about how similes and contraries are integral to public discourse, such as advertising and politics.  It didn’t hurt that I was sneaking in some Mad Men during my study break, and I thought about how advertising uses both types to persuade people to buy their products.  A simile example would be Diet Dr. Pepper, because I remember their candy advertisements, where they would show all these adorable sweets, and then they would turn into Diet Dr. Peppers because they are both sweet, and are interchangeable to the palate (according to them).  A contrary example would be almost any shampoo commercial, where using the other brand would make your hair look like a brillo pad (Garnier), or any curly haired product (huge puffy hair vs shiny curls).  I’m super-skeptical about ads anyway, especially ones about curly hair because all the “befores” are made that way just by brushing out curly hair when it is dry.

Politicians use both similes and contraries all the time, makes me crazy because sometimes it just goes too far.  I can’t count the number times that a politician will compare themselves with Abraham Lincoln or use the “My opponent did this and so did that other guy so obviously they are not good for the job” spiel.  Blech.

Questions

No questions, but I thought it was interesting that Aristotle thought that rhetors should use enthymemes and then use examples last because they are convincing.  I guess there is a question about why he thinks that you really only need one example to support an enthymeme?