For the most part, the author of this text does a good job explaining what the rhetorical situation is; however, I don't like how he contradicts himself by initially saying,"I [would not] equate rhetorical situation with persuasive situation, which exists whenever an audience can be changed in belief or action by means of speech"but later saying, "A work of rhetoric...functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world...In this sense rhetoric is always persuasive." I think he means that a rhetorical piece is not persuasive in the argument, it is persuasive in the way in which the argument is given. It's not requesting you to stop smoking in a call-to-action, but it's giving you all of the facts to lead you to form the idea that you should stop smoking.
Primarily, the author indicates that the makeup and delivery of a rhetoric work depends on the situation that causes it. I was a little confused where he mentioned exigence, audience, and constraints, but I think he was saying that urgent situations are only rhetorical if they can be written about to cause some type of action. He also indicated that the audience should be aimed at a group who can promote the writer's cause. Lastly, constraints can arise from the writer's style or the situation (i.e. when talking about someone dying, you shouldn't be rude and inappropriate)... Well, at least I think this is what he meant.
The text serves the purpose of explaining the rhetorical situation, but the author is too wordy. Unnecessary phrasing and long explanations filled with too many adjectives caused me to have to reread paragraphs to gain some type of understanding. I'm really not even sure if I got the important stuff out of the reading...
I agree with your post, especially in that the "unnecessary phrasing and long explanations filled with too many adjectives" made it difficult to follow. Although we aren't necessarily the intended audience, it is a little ironic that his rhetorical argument on rhetoric didn't work because his argument was confusing.
ReplyDeleteI'm impressed with how much you actually got out of the article. I agree with the autor and think that it is appropriate to approach a paper in a way that doesn't tell someone that they need to do or not do something, but gives the reader the facts and lets them decide themselves. I feel that is a more efficient way to convince a person.
ReplyDelete