Trupe, being a published writer, should know that "the pen is mighter than the sword." Knowning this, she should stop studying the organization of Ghandi's writings and start understanding that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
What the heck is Richard talking about? I'll tell you. When referring to a generic, fictional writer, Trupe labels them as "she." I understand that as a sexist society, writers often say "he," but fighting fire with fire never reached any goal. There are many gender neutral terms Trupe could have used.
As for Trupe: she lost all hope for establishing ethos with me as her reader.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Reader-Based Texts vs. Writer-Based Texts: The Reason Rhetoric Loses Credit
Though Trupe does a great job explaining to writers that they need to establish connection with the readers, it brings up the entire age-old battle of the evils of rhetoric. Clearly explaining a term or two will not alter the writer's opinion of what they write about, but I feel that a writer should write without the reader in mind, then revise his or her piece. If we were to think about the reader from the beginning, we alter our perception: perhaps our imagined audience does not like this idea, or perhaps this is too personal to share with my professor (the usual audience member for writers in college).
I personally believe that one should write to express him or herself, not express what they want the readers to perceive of them. If a writer writes to alter the perception of the readers, then rhetoric is evil and manipulative. Most artists hardly received credit when they were alive because their pieces of work were not understandable to the audience of the time. Decades later, they are masterminds. Should they have made their work understandable to an audience at that time, they would have gone without credit today. Writing should follow the same pattern. Most writers of yesteryear were harshly criticized for pieces that weren't "reader-based." Lo and behold, they are the greatest writers of today.
If we ever want the art of rhetoric to resubmerge from its grave, we must allow for the art of writing to rise first. Bring art back into writing!
I personally believe that one should write to express him or herself, not express what they want the readers to perceive of them. If a writer writes to alter the perception of the readers, then rhetoric is evil and manipulative. Most artists hardly received credit when they were alive because their pieces of work were not understandable to the audience of the time. Decades later, they are masterminds. Should they have made their work understandable to an audience at that time, they would have gone without credit today. Writing should follow the same pattern. Most writers of yesteryear were harshly criticized for pieces that weren't "reader-based." Lo and behold, they are the greatest writers of today.
If we ever want the art of rhetoric to resubmerge from its grave, we must allow for the art of writing to rise first. Bring art back into writing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)