11.06.2007

Mary Astell

At one time or another, each of us has heard a speaker who merely rambled about his topic; perhaps the speech had no organization and it was difficult to tell what exactly he was talking about. Or maybe we have read a book or essay, the sentences of which were disjointed and in which the author jumped from thought to thought without logical order.

Astell in “A Serious Proposal” suggests that these types of errors are likely not the fault of rhetoric or even of the person’s rhetorical skill. Rather, this kind of “obscurity” is best remedied by “meditation”—by spending more time thinking about the topic—because obscurity generally comes from the person not understanding her own topic (Bizzell 853).

Not much later, Blair in “Lectures on Rhetoric” confirms his idea. Quite forcefully, he insists that “every one who has the slightest acquaintance with composition knows, that when he expresses himself ill on any subject,” that is, in a confusing way, it is because of his “indistinct conception of the subject” (Bizzell 952).

What are the implications of these statements in the field of rhetoric (and composition)? For one thing, they seem to limit the power of rhetoric; whereas some ancient philosophers thought that with rhetorical skills a person could be eloquent on any topic, Astell and Blair hold that rhetoric can only elucidate something the person already knows. So is it possible that in teaching composition, instead of simply emphasizing the tools of writing, it is important to focus on the student learning more about and clearly understanding the subjects on which she writes?

4 comments:

EditorialEyes said...

"Write what you know" is advice I've heard since childhood, and it sounds sensible to me. How many people can speak or write well about topics of which they have no knowledge? Not many is my guess. The philosophers who claimed that a speaker with good rhetorical skills will be eloquent, even if he is unfamiliar with his topic, were overly optimistic about the power of rhetoric. Sure, it can be compelling and persuasive, but it needs fuel (data?) if it is to operate efficiently. . . So, yes, Ms. rHetoric, I think it's in the students' best interest to invest in a reasonable amount of research before cranking out the compositions. And, after the students are fueled up with a satisfying collection of facts and ideas, they can write with confidence and not be tempted to fluff, bluff, or pad. . . je

Bewls said...

As I was reading your first paragraph I couldn't help but think, "This describes Astell's piece." While there is discernible organization, the whole piece seemed a bit rambling to me. I know at least some of that feeling is caused by the differences in language use at the time, but perhaps more meditation on her part would have helped ;)

Amy said...

Astell's comment really rang true to me, but I wonder now what the remedy really is. Just thinking about your topic? Or maybe keep on writing, forcing yourself to be clear, until finally you understand what you were trying to say all along. Maybe revision is the key, not planning.

Di said...

Judy gave a good maxim, and here's one I've heard often: You never fully know what you think about something until you write about it. The assumption, of course, is that writing--at least, concise and effective writing-- allows, even forces, the writer to think.

--How do I organize this most effectively? --Wow, I want to talk about this aspect of my topic, but I need to find out a little more about that characteristic. --Hm, I just reread my essay and I have no idea at all what I said! :-)

Of course, that last one happens often in academic writing because we've adopted bureaucratese and sound pretty hifalutin when we connect long strings of hot air. (Yes, Lanham's Paramedic Method is fresh in my mind.) I'm a big Orwell believer. "Politics and the English Language" reminds us that sometimes we let our cliches do our thinking for us.

So yes, meditation is key. Bloom would call it Analysis and Synthesis. I think every student should be able to ask themselves, what do I have to say about this topic? Then he or she should be able to justify that the piece of writing actually accomplished it.