The art of Rhetoric

[Inanna]

For Aristotle, rhetoric is the art of practical wisdom and decision making, a counterpart to logic and a branch of politics. [3] The word is derived from the ancient Greek eiro, which means "I say." In its broadest sense, rhetoric concerns human discourse*.

And thus, Rhetoric is considered a good art to have if you intend to be a writer. Even an academic writer.

Given my angst about my writing skills, I have decided to explore the art and science of Rhetoric. I would like some companions.

Would anybody here be interested in exploring the art of rhetoric with me? We could read any book we wish, post bits of it here, and then discuss with some examples of our own writing. That's one way, there are several others, too, am sure.

So anyone?

* source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sounds like fun.

(But your angst about your writing skills is misplaced.)

[Inanna]

Cool. I'll post something soon... hopefully others will join in soon.

(Thanks for the vote of confidence, V)

[Inanna]

What would be a precursor to investigating rhetoric?

Let me propose: Reflexive/reflective/critical thinking.
Reflexive thinking is thinking about ones' thinking.

Why is it a precursor? Unless until you think about how you think, how will you create arguments to convince others? Why? Because to convince others you need to think about how they, your prospective readers, think and re-craft arguments in your head - and to understand that, you need to know how you think.

far-fetched?

[River]

Not at all.

But some of us seem to think completely orthogonal to the way everyone else does. That makes things interesting. What also happens, from time to time, is you follow a hunch. A flash of intuition. A niggling itch in the back of your brain. There was no logic, you just thought it might work and it did. Or you took a shot-gun approach and something you never would have arrived at rationally (and most likely could never have arrived at rationally) happened. And then you have to justify those approaches. *sigh*

Last week a collaborator asked my boss and I why we'd done something the way we did it. Well, the truth is, I was just trying a bunch of things in parallel and this was the one that worked. And the one that worked was born out of a hunch. So I said that. Maybe a bit too honest. The collaborator didn't seem to mind. After all, the thing works like a charm. But my boss almost ripped my head off.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Not at all.

But some of us seem to think completely orthogonal to the way everyone else does. That makes things interesting. What also happens, from time to time, is you follow a hunch. A flash of intuition. A niggling itch in the back of your brain. There was no logic, you just thought it might work and it did. Or you took a shot-gun approach and something you never would have arrived at rationally (and most likely could never have arrived at rationally) happened. And then you have to justify those approaches. *sigh*

Last week a collaborator asked my boss and I why we'd done something the way we did it. Well, the truth is, I was just trying a bunch of things in parallel and this was the one that worked. And the one that worked was born out of a hunch. So I said that. Maybe a bit too honest. The collaborator didn't seem to mind. After all, the thing works like a charm. But my boss almost ripped my head off.

The interesting part occurs when you figure out why you had that hunch--then you can apply that kind of insight to other situations. Usually, what appears as a "hunch" can be classified according to a set of heuristics.

If you can enumerate the heuristics that you commonly use and make them explicit, you can apply them consciously to solve problems instead of hoping you will get a "hunch".

BrianIs AtYou

[axordil]

Brian's got a very good point, but I would take it even farther: once you've broken down the heuristic bones of the hunch-making process, reassemble them into a streamlined hunch-making process that you can check in on it if need be. We make decisions about writing on a subconscious level at a tremendous rate while actually doing it, and we write most honestly when that rate isn't too slowed by conscious manipulation of the process.

To wit: the best way to learn how to write is to write, and then figure out what works and what doesn't. This process can and should include reading effective writing and understanding its rhetorical tropes. It should also include incorporating those tropes into what you already produce, as opposed to changing it wholesale. As with most knowledge, rhetoric must be internalized to function optimally as part of one's intellectual armamentarium. It, too, must be reduced--or elevated--to the level of hunchcraft.

That only happens through practice. Yes, messageboards can count, if you want them to. There's even a rhetorical place for smileys. If you don't believe me,

Or is that

Or perhaps

typo edit

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just posting to say that I am reading with interest, even if I don't have anything valuable to add at that this time.

[Inanna]

So true! All of you.

I am increasingly convinced that making your arguments explicit in writing is really the way to consciously apply your thinking to solve problems. In a recent discussion with my Prof (and co-author on a paper we were discussing), he mentioned how when thinking about a argument we think "holistically". We think about the potential paths for the argument, the potential reasons why X or Y works, and how we feel as a hunch what the hypothesis going to be. But it is only when we get down to writing the argument, putting our arguments on paper, do the nuances, the holes appear.

Akin to the difference between design and implementation.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

So true! All of you.

I am increasingly convinced that making your arguments explicit in writing is really the way to consciously apply your thinking to solve problems.

Rhetoric covers speaking as well as writing.

I have always thought that rhetoric is more important, in a sense, to speaking and the ability to extemporize and "think on your feet".

Rhetoric provides the framework that keeps you from being tongue tied, and provide you with strategies to move your argument forward skillfully.

The issue of having to "think on your feet" is less of an issue when it come to the written word, since you can edit and re-edit.

However, once you establish the ability to speak using rhetorical skill, it will benefit your written work as well (and you will find that you have less of a need to edit and re-edit, since you will be more likely to work it out right in the first place).

One of the key reasons is that the skills you need to speak, especially the skills needed to keep the attention of the intended audience, rely on the ability to focus the argument, among other things.

When I have more time, I will try to provide some examples.

BrianIs AtYou