1. In the beginning of the Bitzer article on page four, he says
that rhetoric is always persuasive.
“The rhetor alters reality by bringing into existence a
discourse of such a character that the audience, in thought and action, is so
engaged that it becomes mediator of change. In this sense rhetoric is always
persuasive.”
I would like to hear what people think about this statement,
if you agree or disagree, and why?
2. In Jacqueline Royster’s article, she calls for a revamp of
what we consider an authentic “voice” to be, since historically, we have always
defined voice through a written or spoken form.
Do you guys agree with Royster that “voice” can also be
derived through visual and oral means, too? Are we limiting students by only
referring to voice via spoken and written text?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi K.K!
ReplyDeleteI really like your first question and I want to try and address it, or at least get us started.
I think I agree with this statement, because it implies that within a rhetorical discourse in order to actually qualify it as "discourse" it must be 1) not only entertaining but 2) it prompts a response from its audience which will create change. Therefore, a reaction from the audience creates a close relationship between rhetorical situation and audience, a helpful way of understanding both complex terms.