Reading the last book of Aristotle's Rhetoric made me realize several things. One, that the notion of style and presentation was given such detail in his analysis is fascinating simply because it further cements his early expertise at analyzing various aspects of life; but it also made me realize how badly I wish I could read Greek. Not just for the sake of being able to read Rhetoric in its original form, but mainly to see and experience how style was used in the original Greek language. I think a lot of the stylistic beauty is lost in the translation, and I wish I could read many of the original Greek writings in their original form.
This section also further cemented how fundamental audience awareness is to rhetoric. I believe that it is not only a crucial aspect of rhetoric, but it can also be argued to be the most crucial aspect of rhetoric. Not only that, but I also think it is the cornerstone on which rhetoric is build. Audience is key; it is the essential part of anything having to do with rhetoric. Even if there's no audience made up of other people to address there is still the audience of one's self to consider. The basis of all communication, all language, and all knowledge is built around audience, and to not consider or be aware of this audience is a complete and utter failure on the part of the communicator.
Audience fascinates me, from the first moments of considering it in my early written education, to further thinking about and considering it during Dr. Carter's Argumentation class, audience study has had a proof grip on my interest. I also love reading other studies on audience, from the works of Perelman and Toulmin to Aristotle. Jumping back to Aristotle, I find his discussion of audience very interesting in the last book, simply because it seems that the very notion and essence of style is centered on audience. I wouldn't say that style is the most important thing to consider when thinking about an audience; no instead I would have to say it would be the enthymemes and development of the argument. But the very notion of style, for me anyways, seems to be based entirely around the idea of an audience; for what else would be the reason of styling one's communication if not for an audience?
I must admit here that I have actually forgotten my own audience, since I have gone on so long about it. I apologize and will hopefully be able to make sense of my thoughts later on in the semester, which will hopefully lead to less ramblings and more focused writings. This will have to do for now however.
I'm with you on the assertion that audience is the most important rhetorical consideration. Every text, whether written or not, must consider audience first and foremost. I'm not sure whether I agree that style is secondary to enthymemes or argument development because style is such an amorphous word. It's the subject for which so many topics fall under.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, it would be really cool to be able to read and understand texts in their original languages. There's a Dutch phrase, "U lacht als een geit die boos op zijn baard heeft" that literally means "You laugh like a goat that's pissed on its beard," but there's no way to translate the subtle context into English. I imagine it's the same with classical rhetoric.