Because -- Rhetorica is so Fancy.
Let me just begin by saying that the word "Swollen" used on page 251, to describe the "bordering on the Grand style" is probably the best thing I've read yet this semester. Next to it, I wrote, "Don't be a pretentious asshole."
I'm going to just break down what I got from Rhetorica Ad Herennium real quick (omitting the 10,000 definitions, because -- time, people.) Basically, our bro, Anonymous, is all, "Why you gotta be citing so many people when you can just cite yourself? YOU DO YOU!" Then, he's all, "There are three types of speech - Big words, normal words and simple words. Pick your poison." Then, he goes on to say that a mix of all of those would probably be best. Holla, Anonymous. Holla.
My favorite part of this reading section was where the three kinds of styles were described. I think I particularly liked this part because we had just discussed a similar idea in both Science Writing and Digital Rhetorics (*Points for overlapping). Even more importantly, however, I was thankful that our author of this piece distinguished that there need not always be one clear style.
"Distributed sparingly, these figures set the style in relief, as with colors; if packed in close succession, they set the style awry. But in speaking as we should, vary the types of style, so that the middle succeeds the grand and the simple the middle, and then again interchange them, and yet again. Thus, by means of the variations, satiety is easily avoided," (251-2).
This particular reading resonated with me, because it allows variation. I feel that in many of our other readings, we have been given binaries. Either you do this, or you do this. There is no grey area. Our dude, Anonymous, allows us to use various means in our presentation. I wonder then, what the author's feelings would be on different modes of rhetoric. I think that all of his many terms apply to rhetoric in general (though some may need to be altered), but he speaks mainly of oratory usage. Also, the majority of his examples refer to Latin. What happens when these terms are applied to other languages? The possibilities are endless!
It would be interesting to apply these Styles, as well as the Qualities he discusses on page 252, to modern modes of rhetoric. Hmm... I'm off to think about that. Happy reading, all!
Okay, so first thing's first, I loved this post. We seem to agree with much of what the writer was saying within the text especially those bits concerned with the different types of writing. What struck me most of this reading was that words, occasions, and style actually mattered; however, they're just not as rigid as that of Aristotle and Plato. I believe this reading was highly applicable to how we understand the esoteric, yet supposedly understandable world of rhetoric and the umbrella of distinctions therein.
ReplyDeleteI, too, found this post very amusing. I was struck by the term "Slack" to describe the Middle Style - a style that is "without sinews and joints" (251) - perhaps because I come from the original slacker generation. This word choice seemed so perfect in regards to the way I think of a lot of my friends in the '90s - full of big ideas but completely unable to join two sentences together coherently without wandering off to tangential arguments.
ReplyDelete