Chapter 2

Wow! This chapter covered quite a bit of ground! It’s all a little overwhelming.

Well, I suppose I’ll start at the beginning, then. In the first section, Williams explains the “four major pedagogical influences on contemporary rhetoric: classical rhetoric, current-traditional rhetoric, new rhetoric, and romantic rhetoric” (42). In high school, current traditional rhetoric was the norm. Most of the writing we completed was assigned to test our comprehension of the subject matter (plot, characters, themes, etc.), and it was graded formally, based on a scale covering varying degrees of right to wrong (with little room for deviation to express personal thoughts). Before reading this chapter, I had not heard of new rhetoric, so no examples of its application in my life come to mind. Romantic rhetoric is my favorite of the four categories. I did not begin to encounter this type of writing with any sort of regularity until college, and while I realize it is not practical for every instance, I do find it enjoyable. Williams defines romantic rhetoric as being “concerned with individual feelings and a search for personal truth” (59). I enjoy writing imaginative pieces in which my personal views and opinions are permitted to have worth, so it makes sense, then, that I find this type of writing appealing. Finally, classical rhetoric, which was explored in depth last week, is also an area of interest for me. I enjoy reading and studying classical dialogs and I find it fascinating to learn about ancient methods of rhetoric.

I liked the section on writing across the curriculum. I’ve seen this term thrown around quite a bit elsewhere, but I liked the way this chapter explained the concept. I feel I understand it now, and I feel I have a better understanding of how it can be applied to a real-world setting. It seems like a tough thing to implement, but if state mandates and personality clashes do not prevent it from working, it sounds like a great way to give writing meaning.

The final section confused me a little. Somewhere throughout the passages I lost sight of the rhetoric and only saw politics. Maybe that’s the point? I do not know. The part about rhetorical stances (insider to insider, insider to outsider, outsider to insider, and outsider to outsider) made sense, as did most of the other subjects mentioned in the first few pages, but he lost me after a few of the opening sections.