Prep for Thursday, 01-16-14

Class-

I've got a couple of notes I want to give y'all that I think will help the flow of our classroom. First, from now on, I'd like you to have our readings in front of you; that means either print something out or bring a computer to class. If possible, I'd like you to bring a computer so you can refer back to the reading and your blog posts so that you can speak from them.

We got off to a great start last week, but yesterday's class seemed lackluster due to lack of discussion. Bitzer is a hard reading to get through, I understand, but it is a great avenue for understanding the basics of rhetoric. If you had trouble understanding some parts of Bitzer, or just had broad questions and were afraid to ask in front of the class, please email them to me; you will remain anonymous, but it will give me an idea of what I need to go back to tomorrow. In the meantime, here are three passages from Bitzer I want you to re-visit with my own discussion questions; I want you to have responses to tomorrow.

"In contrast, imagine a person spending his time writing eulogies

of men and women who never existed: his speeches meet

no rhetorical situations; they are summoned into existence not

by real events, but by his own Imagination. They may exhibit

formal features which we consider rhetorical — such as ethical

and emotional appeals, and stylistic patterns; conceivably one of

these fictive eulogies is even persuasive to someone; yet all remain

unrhetorical unless, through the oddest of circumstances,

one of them by chance should fit a situation."

Could we conceive of this series of being rhetorical in some way or another? It seems that Bitzer is arguing that in order to be rhetorical, a situation must be non-fictional. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

"What is evidenced on this occasion

is the power of situation to constrain a fitting response.

One might say metaphorically that every situation prescribes its

fitting response;"

Here, Bitzer is saying that there is only one correct way to respond to a rhetorical situation, and rhetors have a chance of missing the mark completely. Does this seem correct?

"On the other hand, consider a complex but loosely structured situation,

'William Lloyd Garrison preaching abolition from town to town.

He is actually looking for an audience and for constraints; even

when he finds an audience, he does not know that it is a genuinely

rhetorical audience — one able to be mediator of change.

Or consider the plight of many contemporary civil rights advocates

who, failing to locate compelling constraints and rhetorical

audiences, abandon rhetorical discourse in favor of physical

action."

So, physical action isn't rhetorical? Is that what Bitzer is saying? Do you agree or disagree?

Please look over these and come to class prepared to talk tomorrow; I'm going to try something new to get y'all talking. Have a good one.