Chapter 10

 Chapter 10 of ARCS discusses the third cannon of rhetoric known as style. One of the important figures in the history of rhetoric and style is Gorgia's who was credited with the discovery that extra ordinary uses of language were useful in not only poetry but prose. This ornament of language is useful in exciting emotion the audience and creating a mental sketch of the argument instead of explaining it. The main purpose of the chapter is to discuss the many ways that rhetors enhanced their ethos. By enhancing that ethos the rhetors were able to become closer to the audience which make it easier for the audience to support the argument if they take a personal stance in it. Another tool used by the rhetors is the trick of reasoning by question and answer. This trick allows the speaker to repeat their position more than once as well as state an opposing view or question the audience may have. You hear much of this in politics today and religious speeches especially where the speaker is trying to move the audience into an emotional frenzy. The question and answer trick is also commonly used in inspirational speeches such as pre game by coaches. I know I personally have heard my coaches ask us if we are going to lose and then answer his own question with a loud “No!” in order to get us all riled up and the truth is it works.  

RT Enlightenment

 In this reading the author discusses how rhetoric developed from the 17^th to 19^th centuries and how the conception of rhetoric evolved during that period. One concept that was discussed was the theory presented by Francis Bacon on how the brain is divided into three faculties of memory, imagination, and reasoning. The author talks about how his theory that reasoning could move imagination which in turn would move will. The author states that this is not true which I agree with seeing how we tell people everyday things are bad for them such as smoking and yet people still do it, even with the imagination producing images of what can happen if they continue to smoke.

Also brought into discussion was the 18^th century Elocution movement during which there was a heavy focus on correctness in language pronunciation. I think that this is visible in many older movies that I have watched. Like the book said it was also a sign of class whereas it isn't so much today. If you were of a certain class you were expected to speak gentlemanly with your pronunciation. Today there are many people of high-class that have terrible pronunciation and grammar. For example many hip hop artists speak and pronounce words so badly that it could almost be considered another language.  

Essay 2

Travis Porter

Engl 360

10/20/2011

Essay 2

The Printing Press and Rhetoric

Elizabeth Eisenstein was an American historian during the early 19^th century and was known for her historical study of print, writing, and the first study of the transition between manuscript to print. She took a particular interest in one important factor of this transition, the printing press. The first printing press was developed by a German named Johannes Gutenberg around 1450. This machine was probably the most influential tool of rhetoric ever created.

Before the creation of the printing press all text and print was hand written as manuscripts by hired individuals. If copies of this manuscript were wanted the author had to have it re written each time which led to discrepancies and errors between texts. This process was also slow and a highly inefficient way to spread any kind of knowledge or rhetoric among the population. The Renaissance printing press on the other hand, could produce three thousand and six hundred pages a day. Each of these pages being written the same exact way with the same exact text. As you can imagine this had a great deal of influence on rhetoric and the rate it could be used to bombard an audience. The book written by Elizabeth called “The Printing Press as an Agent of Change”, analyzes these effects cause by the printing press and shows how it led to the advancement of rhetoric.

In Elizabeth Eisenstein's book “The Printing Press as an Agent of Change”, she talks about how much study has been done on the developments that led to the printing press and how it has become such a successful tool today.(Eisenstein 4) However she states that her main focus in her book is to explain the consequences of such a device. There is even a cited passage in her text from a writer stating that “The Immense and revolutionary change which it (the invention of printing) brought about can be summarized in one sentence: Until that time every book was a manuscript.”. This statement alone is a statement of ignorance. I personally have not spent much time in the study of rhetoric or history of the printing press for that matter, but even I can say this is a bullshit statement. The printing press gave those skilled rhetors a very powerful tool that allowed them to reach farther and be accessible longer than ever before.

One of the ways this revolutionary machine affected rhetoric was that it allowed a piece of writing to reach anywhere in the world in a short amount of time. Manuscripts had to be handwritten which was their drawback, a printing press could kick out many exact copies at a rapid pace. This meant that hundreds of copies could be made and distributed in a short amount of time allowing a writer to reach an enormous amount of the public over a widespread area without much work. In regards to rhetoric it meant sharing a viewpoint and gaining mass support quickly. Another interesting way the printing press affected rhetoric is in the way we perceive that information. When somebody is speaking we can tell what kind of mood they are in, the importance of the information, whether or not they are telling the truth, and much, much more. When you read a book you really don't have any idea of the feeling behind the words. Sure you can choose certain types of words and use punctuation to get some of it across, but you can't tell if what your reading is the truth, sarcasm, or emotional. For example you could read about someone asking another person “What the fuck are you doing?”, and this statement could be serious, angry, confused, or joking. It could even mean something completely different from what is written such as “Why are you doing that”. This meant that when writing the author had to had separate identifiers in the text stating that it was a “joke” or “serious” or the reader may take it the wrong way.

The printing press also gave rhetors a way to give more depth to their work without detracting from the piece. In “Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students” the author talks about a concept known as “copia”, meaning paraphrasing or compressed information.(Sharon 392) The invention of the printing press allowed for significantly more of this during the 15^th century. Before the press if an argument was made orally the speaker had to be concise and give only the most prevalent and moving information he/she could or it was possible that the audience would be lost and pay less attention as time goes on. I had a teacher tell me once that the more information that is given, the less information is comprehended. If you try to give a person too much information in too little time odds are they will burn out and stop listening. Now this same theory applies to reading, if a person is given too much information to read in too little of a time they will give up or resort to “skimming” and note taking. However one of the advantages of the printing press was that if a writer took enough time to cram as much copia into his/her writing then it could be reproduced with little work through a printing press. Once the book was produced and picked up by a person then that person could read to their hearts desire and set the book down to come back to later when it became too much. The result of something like this in a speech would be the audience walking out, which is bad for the speaker. The press allowed the writer to only have to create this large amount of information once lessening the creation burden of the manuscript writer and putting it on the machine, and from there the information became available to retention at the consumers leisure.

Not only did the printing press allow for a better delivery method of more information, but it also allowed for new and improved knowledge of both subject and rhetoric in the world. This unrelenting hailstorm of literary material allowed for the market to be saturated with educational material, novels, studies, and any other genre of information that one might come up with. When you add all of this together you can come up with one sure reality, competition. The large amount of material that represented the same area of study or the same genre of story caused writers to compete with one another to create a better work, whereas before the printing press there wasn't much competition. It took so long to accumulate material to write about and get it written that not many people got their work out. This new competition allowed people to take information from one side and combine it with the other to create new knowledge that would have never been discovered before. The competition also cause the writers to work harder increasing the quality of what was produced. This also meant that it revolutionized knowledge in a way that discredited what was once true. For example one may have read a manuscript about how the world was flat and believed it because there was no refutable work or there was no access to such a thing in the area that person lived. After the printing press that same person may encounter one of many copies of a different book that said the world was round and that book could change that person's mind, upon which the person would spread the information that would ultimately lead to the “flat world' theory being discredited.

Not many people would think a machine could affect things such as freedoms or creditability, but it does. Up until not long ago in the grand scheme of things people were discriminated against for sex, age, and even color. These factor could lead to even the best rhetor being discredited and even put in physical harm. Writing changed this by creating an anonymity that could keep such things from readers and therefore not drawing the attention away from the work. The problem is few of these people could write and even fewer could do it well enough to reproduce any number of manuscripts. The printing press changed all of that, if you could make one copy you could make thousands. It did not matter if you were white, black, twelve, female, or were born with three legs. As long as you could produce something that could be edited and then used in a printing press you could some day be a famous writer. The machine gave those few who had to be anonymous their chance to stand out and be heard all over the world.

Despite all of these important reasons the printing press revolutionized rhetoric and literature I believe the most important change it brought was in religion. One of the most powerful books ever written was the bible. From the bible has stemmed, war, happiness, genocide, and the unification of many different kinds of people under one particular belief. The printing press allowed for the many different kinds of religions to spread their word and educate their pupils. It's common knowledge that every religious text whether it be the bible or Qur’an are not small texts. Each one of these could take a writer weeks to make just one copy meaning that religion had to be spread orally. This also meant that what one group of people might hear about a religion in one area could be completely different in another. Once the churches were able to mass produce their writings they were able to unify the teachings by giving everyone a book so that each person received the exact same religious knowledge. It also made expansion of the religion much easier because of how quickly literature could be spread. The printing press brought many things from knowledge, freedom, and even power and completely revolutionized rhetoric from the moment it was discovered.

Works Cited

Sharon, Crowley. Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students. 4th. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2009. 392. Print.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth. The printing press as an agent of change: communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe. 1st. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 4. Web. <http://books.google.com/books?id=WR1eajpBG9cC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0 

Chapter 9

 In ARCS chapter 9 covers arrangement and its effective use in rhetorical argument. The author makes a good point in saying that it is one of the most important factors. I know from my personal experience you organize your argument so that you give your strongest most effective point first and then build on that. The chapter also covered the different kinds of cases such as Honorable, difficult, mean, ambiguous, and obscure. Each of these different categories are a way of describing an argument that is being presented. The way this connects to arrangement is if your arrangement is good then you may have an honorable case and therefore gaining immediate support. If your arrangement is bad your case may be defined as one of the other 4 cases where the audience responds meekly or not at all. The author also describes how to organize a good argument and explain to the audience why they should care about this topic or why it is of any importance of them. There is also a good section on how to argue your point in such a way that it brings the other rhetor into a negative light. The four important steps to capture your audience are to show importance of the issue, show how it affects the audience, show how it affects everyone, and then show how it affects the general good of the community.

Margaret Fell

The reading about Margaret Fell takes an interesting stance on women and their history of literacy. I had no idea that religion was the main reason that women were taught to read and right or that it led to their oral rhetoric. In a way Fell is portrayed as a Martin Luther King for women. She was to literacy among women as he was to freedom for African-Americans. In the section about her it describes that she was deeply religious and that she used that religion to speak publicly and write. This was severely frowned upon in her time and women were seen as people who should not be heard. At least this is one instance where I can say religion led to something good. It's impressive that she continued to still write and speak while being ridiculed and harassed by the public. The last thing that would be on my mind if someone was trying to take my home and land is writing religious works. In short what I learned was women were severely illiterate before the spread of Christianity. After the religion spread the fact that women had to read the bible lead to them ultimately being educated and the number of women that could sign their name jumped way up. The text also says that the spreading of religion by women is what gave them the opportunity to use their rhetoric publicly while debating religion or teaching.

Ramus

 The reading about Peter Ramus was actually an interesting piece and good example of karma if you ask me. He was obviously a very smart student being that he went to college at the age of twelve but it sounds to me like he let it go to his head. The man was smart but ambitious and the fact that he attacked many famous and renowned rhetors ultimately led to his demise. He was obviously very big-headed to think that a university should just dump their methods of teaching and do things his way. In a way I think he got what he deserved in the end for being overtly cocky and full of himself. Even the way that Ramus debated as is described in the book shows him to be the self-absorbed ass that he is. Throughout the chapter the book discusses how in the majority of Ramus's debates such as against Quintilian, he not only puts down the opposition in a demeaning way but recommends that his own ways replace that of the previous rhetoric. I feel like if Ramus had a motto it would be “my way or the highway”.   

Speech

Condemnation Speech

You will not gain much WSU parking, you are assholes and those who hear you gave me a ticket will know you as such....assholes. If you had waited a little longer I would have been gone and your desire of me to vacate my parking space would have been fulfilled. I am only talking about you who have written me this ticket and chose not to dismiss it. You think you are doing right because I did not explain myself well, but this is not the case. I did not come in crying and begging throwing a little tantrum like you have come to expect. But I would rather have stood up to you than given you what you want. A man should not be a brown nose, even if it gets you out of your situation, stand up for yourself. And now I leave you, condemned to pay your outrageous ticket but you too leave to deal with karma. I must suffer my consequences but you too have it coming.

And now I must pay my ticket I will tell you your fate. For this is the time students are granted this power. You who have been assholes will have bad bad things happen to you after I have paid my fine. For there will be far more people that will hate you now that I have kept at bay. Because they are younger they will do far worse things to you and you will be far more upset at them. If you think that handing out tickets makes you the good guy, you are an idiot. That is not the way to make you a better person. This is the fate I see for you who have condemned me.

My friends that were on my side I would like to discuss what happened with you while the assholes talk before I must go empty my wallet into their pockets. You are my friends and I would like explain why this happened. You are judges because you truly judge me. On my shoulder is a little man that tell me if what I am doing is right or wrong but now I have done something considered to be wrong but my little man kept silent and has stayed that way. I interpret this as a sign that what happened to me is good and those who think getting tickets are bad are wrong. Because if getting a ticket were bad then my little man would have told me, which proves it is good.

Source

Plato: The Apology

(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/plato_apology.htm )

Not much time will be gained, O Athenians, in return for the evil name which you will get from the detractors of the city, who will say that you killed Socrates, a wise man; for they will call me wise even although I am not wise whe n they want to reproach you. If you had waited a little while, your desire would have been fulfilled in the course of nature. For I am far advanced in years, as you may perceive, and not far from death. I am speaking now only to those of you who have condemned me to death. And I have another thing to say to them: You think that I was convicted through deficiency of words -- I mean, that if I had thought fit to leave nothing undone, nothing unsaid, I might have gained an acquittal. Not so; the deficiency wh ich led to my conviction was not of words -- certainly not. But I had not the boldness or impudence or inclination to address you as you would have liked me to address you, weeping and wailing and lamenting, and saying and doing many things which you have been accustomed to hear from others, and which, as I say, are unworthy of me. But I thought that I ought not to do anything common or mean in the hour of danger: nor do I now repent of the manner of my defence, and I would rather die having spoken after m y manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he m ay escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they, too, go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; and I must abide by my award -- let them abide by theirs. I suppose that these things may be regarded as fated and I think that they are well.

And now, O men who have condemned me, I would fain prophesy to you; for I am about to die, and that is the hour in which men are gifted with prophetic power. And I prophesy to you who are my murderers, that immediately after my death punishment far heavier than you have inflicted on me will surely await you. Me you have killed because you wanted to escape the accuser, and not to give an account of your lives. But that will not be as you suppose: far otherwise. For I say that there w ill be more accusers of you than there are now; accusers whom hitherto I have restrained: and as they are younger they will be more severe with you, and you will be more offended at them. For if you think that by killing men you can avoid the accuser censuring your lives, you are mistaken; that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honorable; the easiest and noblest way is not to be crushing others, but to be improving yourselves. This is the prophecy which I utter before my departure, to the judges who have condemned me.

Friends, who would have acquitted me, I would like also to talk with you about this thing which has happened, while the magistrates are busy, and before I go to the place at which I must die. Stay then awhile, for we may as well tal k with one another while there is time. You are my friends, and I should like to show you the meaning of this event which has happened to me. O my judges -- for you I may truly call judges -- I should like to tell you of a wonderful circumstance. Hitherto to the familiar oracle within me has constantly been in the habit of opposing me even about trifles, if I was going to make a slip or error about anything; and now as you see there has come upon me that which may be thought, and is generally believed to be, to the last and worst evil. But the oracle made no sign of opposition, either as I was leaving my house and going out in the morning, or when I was going up into this court, or while I was speaking, at anything which I was going to say; and yet I have often b een stopped in the middle of a speech; but now in nothing I either said or did touching this matter has the oracle opposed me. What do I take to be the explanation of this? I will tell you. I regard this as a proof that what has happened to me is a good, and that those of us who think that death is an evil are in error. This is a great proof to me of what I am saying, for the customary sign would surely have opposed me had I been going to evil and not to good.

Reflection

Overall I didn't find this assignment too hard but there were some issues that I came up against during the process. I wrote my speech on “The Apology” by Plato which is about Socrates giving an apology and defending himself while he is condemned to death. It was a little difficult to capture his theme and transfer it into my own words because the way we speak today compared to how we spoke back in the day of Plato is much different. The first thing I had to do was figure out which portion of the article was usable since the whole piece is too long to replicate. I chose this portion because he tries to convince the public and the council that he is innocent which I could relate to any hearing that would happen in the present. Then after that I had to decipher exactly what it was Plato was saying since you cannot simply read and understand what he says due to the grammar that was used back in those days. The ending was particularly hard to figure out because he tried to connect the fact that his conscience hadn't said anything about what had happened with why what he did was right.

I decided that for my topic I would use a hearing from the parking department because it fit in nicely with the original topic of Socrates on trial. One thing in particular that I felt was largely appropriate was the fact that many people feel that the parking departments judgment is wrong just like Socrates believed that the council was wrong. I tried to make it comical while at the same time keeping the same style of argument as Plato used. What I found helped best was to go through and read the speech again and as I went through the speech I picked out the main focus and general ideas that are presented. Once I had gathered enough information I took these general ideas and made up my story using the same guidelines.

What I found difficult in making this speech was more the memorization of it after I had written it. I have always found myself to be a good speaker because I research a topic and then go completely impromptu and just start talking instead of writing it out before hand. In this case I didn't have a hard time coming up with the speech but it definitely took awhile to get it memorized. Finding the right speech was also kind of an interesting task in that it was hard to take something so old and portray its style in a modern topic. I had to search for quite a long time to find this speech and then read through it to pick out the paragraphs that I would use for my analysis. However reading much of the actual speech and not just the section that I was doing helped the process along faster and I feel made a better overall project. Having more background on the argument then was just in the paragraphs I chose helped my understand what was being referred to and what ideas were being presented.

Some things I felt that I could have improved on was making my speech a little longer. The problem was that I picked a long section of a speech but once the content and style was pulled from it my speech was far more condensed. I think that the reason for this was that today we don't speak the same way and the grammar that was used in the past made for a longer way of saying something then it would take today. I also would have left more time for memorization of my material because as I mentioned earlier that was a hard thing for me to do and not something that I am used to. What I liked about my speech was that I felt I presented it well and tried to change up the ways I was talking when at certain parts of the speech such as when I called the parking department “assholes” I tried to give a dramatic pause at the beginning. Also I felt that I spoke loudly and clear enough for everyone to hear but kept a pace that made it easy to understand as well. Overall the project was interesting to me because I got to analyze something that was so old, whereas in most of my classes we analyze modern topics and political speech's which I find significantly less interesting than these speeches. I also like how we got to take the piece of work and re-write it and change it into what we wanted it to be versus just memorizing and old speech which is what I thought we might be doing. I felt that this was a fun project and the fact that I could take something serious and ancient and make it modern and comical made it fun while I learned about ancient rhetoric.