How Can a Man Clam?

I found this quote today in an article by Henry Lous Gates Jr. that I was assigned to read for Methods of Critical Analysis, and I thought it was particularly appropriate since we'll be talking about oral presentations next week. Bear with me, it's a bit long...(he is talking about an incident when he was giving a talk to a college honors seminar on Frederick Douglass)

"Everything was neatly schematized, formalized, analyzed; this was my Sunday-best structuralism: crisp white shirt and shiny black shoes. And it wasn't playing. If you've seen an audience glaze over, this was double glazing. Bravely, I finished my talk and, of course, asked for questions. 'Yeah, brother,' said a young man in the very back of the room, breaking the silence that ensued, 'all we want to know is, was Booker T. Washington an Uncle Tom or not?'
The funny thing is, this happens to be an interesting question, a lot more interesting than my talk was. It raised all the big issues about the politics of style, about what it means to speak for another, about how to distinguish between canny subversion and simple co-optation-- who was manipulating whom? And while I didn't exactly appreciate it at the time, the exchange did draw my attention, a little rudely perhaps, to the yawning chasm between our critical discourse and the traditions they discourse upon."

Okay, so if anyone is still with me after that mouthful...I just think that it is a great example of someone not taking their audience into account. This man felt very prepared, had everything organized and ready, but never thought about how the people actually listening to his speech would feel about it. Lesson learned.

Mentoring Expectations from Students

As an FYS mentor I have had students come to me for help often and it is interesting to observe the way I approach their needs. I have noticed that I tend to start out as a minimalist because I ask my students what I can help them with and what their concerns are about the paper or assignment. Often they are able to tell me, but they have no idea how to approach their concerns. This is when I tend to become more directive or we would both sit there in silence. It can sometimes be frustrating when you do not want to tell the student exactly what to do, but they are not responding to your questions or I have had a student actually say "ok well I don't know, what do you think I should write here". It seems that most students expect mentors to be directive and to tell them exactly how to perfect their papers. It is difficult for me to let them learn on their own because I do know exactly how to fix their papers since I took the FYS last year, but I am there to guide them and not tell them exactly what to do. They will not learn this way. It is difficult because most students expect the answers and not a lesson.

Lonely Mentor

I’ve now been an FYS mentor for four weeks and NO ONE has come to see me yet! Why don’t people want help with their papers? Do they think it will take to much time or that it will be embarrassing?

When we role played in class today, being the tutor and the tutee, it was much easier to play the role of the tutee. The example paper would have been MUCH better if someone –ANYONE- had read it over. I wish I could assure all first years that writing mentors are harmless and can definitely help. For the first years that I am mentoring, I wish I could go to their class and tell them that it is easy to come and get help. Unfortunately, I have class during their FYS meeting time, so I guess I just have to sit in the library and wait for them to come to me on their own.

Rhetoric and Sports Psychology

I just finished reading an article for my Sports Psychology class about the development of coach-training programs. The following sentence was found under the section heading credibility and persuasiveness: "The perceived similarity between a communicator and the target of the message affects the power of persuasion" (Smoll and Smith, p. 468). I found this interesting because of our class discussion involving a long conversation about rhetoric and persuasion. We were trying to decipher the difference between these two words. Smoll and Smith's article, even though they are psychologists, suggests that the most important aspect of rhetoric and communication is the relationship between the communicator and his/her audience. If rhetoric is meant to persuade then the environment the communicator creates affects his/her ability to persuade. Since Smoll and Smith's article is about creating workshops to improve coaching behaviors, the person who will be speaking at these workshops must know how to approach the art of persuasion without purposefully letting the audience, which would be the coaches, know that this is his/her intentions. The following sentence even suggests something else: "With respect to trusting a communicator's intentions, credibility increases when the communicator does not appear to be purposefully trying to persuade the target" (Smoll and Smith, p. 468). This suggests that rhetoric is meant to trick the audience into being persuaded and that this is what makes a good communicator and someone the audience trusts.

Aristotle's Path to Knowledge

I finally figured out how to become a contribut0r!

I just read Gage’s Why Write and it is interesting how philosophers viewed writing and communication. Here is one quote that really struck me:

“Aristotle did not think that there could be anything like a “systematic” set of “rules” that could lead to knowledge” (pg 12).

This reminds me of the different outlooks that professors have on how classes should be taught. Some classes are very structured with a powerpoint for every chapter of a textbook, whereas, some classes are more laid-back discussion classes. I prefer structured or “systematic” classes because I know exactly what is going to be on the final exam. Aristotle might question my preference by asking how much knowledge or material did I retain from each class. The information is more clear-cut in a structured class, but does that mean I’m getting more out of it? Probably not. Gaining knowledge and achieving a certain GPA can be two very different processes.

Emboldened Rhetoric

Although I'll admit that The Daily Show's politics skew liberal, I always admire the way their writers are not afraid to call anyone--of any political stripe--on sloppy uses of language...dare I say, of sloppy rhetorical choices.

A few days ago the show did a great riff on the use of the phrase "embolden the enemy"--something that we're told we do if we, for example, vote for Democrats, question the current running of the war, etc. The montage of clips showed that politicians on every side (even the guest that night, Democrat Joe Biden) had thrown the word around. It was a great mini-lesson in semantics. (I would link you directly to a YouTube page for the video, but Comedy Central's parent company, Viacom, has ordered YouTube to remove Viacom video from the site.)

Here, though, is the way "reporter" John Oliver summed up the way language has gotten tangled:

Well, this is an odd, unconventional war. This isn't like World War II where there were winners and losers. It' s a new kind of war where enemies can either be emboldened or beweakened. So we have to enscare them to the point where they rebecave themselves. We must disimagine the very figment of misunsuccessiveness. That is what we have to bedo.

Welcome, New Rhetors!

Welcome to those of you in the two sections of Rhetoric and Communication Theory and Practice who will be posting to this blog at least once a week. Feel free to read through old entries to get a sense of the range of things you might muse on here. Because the blog will soon be open to all tutors and mentors (and to some graduates who've expressed interest in keeping up with us), it seems the most interesting posts will be ones that touch on real life--tutoring experiences, frustrations at the rhetorical choices of others, things you hear or see in the media, etc. Add links and pictures whenever it seems appropriate, and make connections to interesting quotes from our readings when relevant.

Conference Proposal 1+1=11: A Look Into Faulty Reasoning

What strikes me about the topic I chose is that it is real. I fully advocate that with a better understanding of argumentation, students will gain critical thinking skills and communication skills essential to all fields of college, as well as the real world. Take for instance a tutorial I gave on a bleak Monday evening. A friend of mine was concerned with her organization and needed help with a piece of writing. Being an analytical type of writing, how could I say resist? Coincidentally, this tutorial was the reason why my proposal holds truth. The piece of writing was a Defense Statement made to the District Attorney's Office in response to a speeding ticket.

The student made three main claims, none of which were supported. The claims were good, they were statements that said she shouldn't get a ticket, but they never really explained why she felt so. One more thing I couldn't help but notice, her argumentation was rhetorically declined. Her arguments weren't persuasive enough, or did not effectively appeal to the audience. Being that the District Attorney has more than likely read thousands of Defense Statements made by college students trying to get out of speeding tickets, the argument is going to have to strike a logos with him or her.

So, reinforcing the concept of the necessity of emphasis of argumentation, the proposed argument really does help prepare you for the real world, and can also help you get out of $300 speeding ticket fines.

As I Reflect...

I thought I should just throw in a reflection of the class. One thing that stood prominently in my mind as I showered 7am this morning (hey, the best thinking goes on in a bathroom) is that I still feel the way I do about reader-based vs. writer-based writing, as I should since my ideas are mine to own. But, what I have come to conclude is that writing in a reader-based style is simply another form of rhetoric. I'm going to coin a term here, so pay close attention:

Socio-rhetorism

I use the term as a concept in which people write according to what they think would persuade their readers about their writing according to the context of their societal means. Thanks all folks! I will not be persuaded and I encourage all the open their eyes and understand why I believe what I do. If not, it's a shame, but then again, you are simply doing what you are meant to: Be a product of your society...

Revising Research: The Art of Conformity

If you thought I went far with the reader-based, writer-based argument, please ignore this one.

This week's rant is on changing the research question in order to accomodate your research. It should not be done. Should a lawyer decide to take a case, then turn it down because they're not prepared, it only destroys the credibility of the lawyer. Similarly, should a student change their research question because they don't feel they have the research to support it, their credibility as a researcher and their reputation as one with critical thinking skills is lost. Thinking outside the box is what makes a research good, from making the research question to finding supporting evidence.

Readiness for Research: The Problem With Students Today

In the Wysocki and Lynch reading, the text goes on extensively about the need for a research question. For me, students entering the writing center almost always never prepare one, assuming the assignment sheet handed to them by their professor is enough. While it may give insight to guidance, the student must ultimately conclude one for themselves. Beyond research being a "social action," as described on page 145, it is also a solo action. It requires making a researchable claim and then revising that claim based upon luck with research (topic for next blog posting).

This or That? When to Use Each

This is a bit irrelevant, but I have a question which pertains to rhetoric. When writing, does one use "this" or "that," or does it not matter?

For example, I have written a statement in one sentence. I make reference to the statement in the next sentence. Which of the two should I use, this or that?

ex - "Math is good. This is true because..."
or "Math is good. That is true becuase..."

The Enemy Enthymeme

Whatever happened to the old fashioned method of argument? First you make a claim, and then you back it up with a warrant. I believe that using the concept of the enthymeme will ultimately lead to confusion for students. I understand the concept of the enthymeme, and I use it all the time when making an argument, but I would never try to explain to someone that it is the way to view their argument. Explaining to a student in a modified version works better. Tell them that their thesis should be their claim, their body paragraphs should be the evidence, and their conclusion should be their conclusion (sorry, there's no real synonym that I'd like better). For example:

Cheese is good for you
Cheese is high in calcium, which prevents bone loss
Cheese is high in protein, which helps build muscle
Cheese is low in carbohydrates, which can help you lose weight
Because cheese prevents bone loss, helps build muscle, and helps lose weight, it is good for you.


I know that it is essentially the enthymeme, but it is a much easier way of explaining to tutees, especially those who enter the WORD Studio with problems with their "there's." Without going too far off topic, let's get back to the enthymeme. Onto another example, the comic strip The Lockhorns best illustrate the organization of argument and the effect of the proper usage of enthymeme:

Enthymeme

Main Entry: en·thy·meme
Function: noun

1. A snooty way of saying the structure of an argument ( My name is Doctor Smartypants and your assignment is to create a paper using an enthymeme on quantum physics its use in cytogenetics).

2. A filler; a word with no relevance.

See also: Rhetoric

Tabula Rasa? When to Start With a Clean Slate

I specifically liked the point made on page 22 of Meeting Minds: A Brief Rhetoric for Wrtiers and Readers about how there are certain assumptions a writer makes to grasp his or her intended audience: "when your readers identify an assumption or values they share with you, they will be more sympathetic to you reasoning."

One problem though: To what point does one assume? Surely a writer will assume the language is something the audience members will understand. But what about concepts? Ideas? Words? At what point does one say, "everyone should know this?" And when to we start tabula rasa?

Identity Crisis: Consultant vs. Tutor

Upon reading "Tutoring in Unfamiliar Subjects" by Alexis Greiner, I feel that I shall no longer be known as a WORD Studio tutor, but instead a consultant. Greiner makes a point in saying that it is a consultant that "help{s} by provoking thought through conversation, posing questions, and engaging writers in the work of writing" (115). The term tutor implies that the tutor has the ability to teach others to write well. I feel that it is not the case at Saint Lawrence because the application process simply asks for a written piece of work, not a resume showing one's ability to help others.
Epiphany: We as a writing center should stop even advertising ourselves as "the one's who can help with papers." Think about it: The ideal writing center should help students how to write better; we should not only help students when they have an assignment due soon. In order to do so, all of the "consultants" employeed should take a class *cough* English 229 Rhetoric and Communication Theory and Practice, with Professor Hillory Oakes on Tuesdays from 2:20 - 3:50pm *cough* that will enhance their ability to tutor others in writing. Only then should we be called tutors.

Professor Oakes, how do you feel about the WORD Studio changing not only its name but its mode of operation?

Alice in Rhetorland

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.

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!

Thursday's Class

Wonderful. Absolutely wonderful. One problem: Kirk left the TV on Dharma & Greg while he was talking. Major distraction. It doesn't really matter what was showing on the screen; it was the simple fact that the audience members are like flies who follow bright lights. That portion of his speech zipped across from one ear to the next.

Moral of the story: when speaking, permit no distractions!

Pathos in Papers: The Lost Art of Emotion and Punctuation

It seems that the use of pathos, or emotional appeal to the reader, via punctuation is a lost art. Wysocki and Lynch are fantastic writers on the subject. I personally view there being more to pathos in a paper than just what you read. I believe that pathos appears in what you see as well. The same way one can be emotionally attached by what one says, they can also be emotionally attached by what one sees. Needless to say, our society is based highly on what we see. Who cares if Jessica Simpson has less brain cells than cotton (no, not Hillory's child). She looks good, doesn't she?
I believe that the same should go into a paper's presentation. I don't mean that one should you have 1-inch margins on white paper that's has no creases. That's true, but what I mean is that many professors frown on using exclamation points, or bold face, and underlining in a paper. It's understood that books should be underlined, so by convention we underline those in a paper, but we shouldn't be limited to word art. This artistic form of writing can create pathos with the reader. It speaks about the writers character and introduces a whole new world of comprehension and complexity.

There are two aspects to a paper: that that can be read, and that that can be seen! Bring back the visual paper!