English Post #1 - Rhetoric

Blog #1: Prior to reading Herrick's introduction, how would you have defined rhetoric? How does today's reading change your perceptions of rhetoric? Do you have a new definition of rhetoric? What is it?

When I think of rhetoric, I think of Bill O’Reilly and his “’No-Spin’ Zone.” There’s a reason I use quotes there, but that’s another story. Rhetoric to me, is spin. Communication is all about how you say something, and Rhetoric is how you say it. Whether you add innuendo, or inflect a certain word you say, or anything else to sway someone, that’s rhetoric.

Now, after reading the Herrick article, I’ve kept some of my opinions and changed others. You certainly plan out what you will say, you think about the audience you influence, and rhetoric certainly has motives behind it. I never really thought of the uses of rhetoric other than the political version of it. Rhetoric and its use to persuade in a positive way is certain useful (advocacy). What is most enlightening to me, is rhetoric as a fact finder. I never thought about the critical thinking that Herrick speaks of in the article. To either create rhetoric or address it, you need to think about what you will say, and possible objections to it. You also have to think about the other things previously mentioned (audience, etc.). You have to think about any evidence in any situation you respond to. Rhetoric, and any communication, (though I would argue that most communication is rhetorical) one needs to evaluate each situation as it occurs.

Coming back to Mr. O‘Reilly, and any pundit out there, rhetoric is useful. Influential speaking is what makes communication tremendously useful.