It is interesting to realize that when I think of rhetoric in as simple of terms as possible, it always directly correlates to writing for me. The texts that the rhetors have published (the two we're reading for starters), research projects, etc. And then I read something like Phaedrus and remember that back when Plato, Aristotle and their like were around, they weren't necessarily for writing - I think it was Plato who believed that if we began really using writing, we'd lose a certain grasp on our memories? Which I suppose in a way is true.
"Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings, they always say only one and the same thing. And every word, when once it was written, is bandied about, alike among those who understand and those who have no interest in it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak; when ill treated or unjustly reviled, it always needs its father to help it; for it has no power to protect or help itself." (166)
I know that's a long quote, but it's the one that spoke most to me from this entire reading. Socrates seems very down on the art of writing because it can give no defense for itself when questioned or in an argument. But shouldn't a well written piece cover all of the grounds of its own argument, answering the unspoken thoughts of the person who has picked it up to read? Writing - in my mind, I suppose - does what an orator would do. After giving a speech, an orator can respond to questions, and mend any holes in his argument as he does that. But a good writer would anticipate those questions, and put the answers to them in his written speech, so they don't need to be asked. That's why we revise and revise until we have a final product, be it an essay, song, thesis or novel.
Thoughts?
I think the argument can be made that texts do 'talk' to each other. You have articles that answer a previous article, either in support or against them. And aren't academic disciplines just authors and texts interacting with each other? We base our writing off of other writing, and can write with the purpose to answer issues brought up in a previous text. I think the conversation just becomes slowed--instead of immediate question and answers, you might have a gap time of days or months or years. Doesn't the very fact that we are studying Plato and other 'classic' rhetoricians support the idea that in a way we are in conversation with their ideas through writing? We are still asking questions, looking for holes or the 'meaning' of their arguments, all these years later from when the texts were written.
ReplyDeleteI actually did not get the sense that Plato and his Socrates were so much against the written word as a form of rhetoric, however, I think you bring up an awesome point--texts cannot alter themselves after their initial presentation so as to continue their rhetorical pursuits. Plato's Socrates speaks a great deal in Phaedrus as to the importance of understanding the soul's and nature of one's audience, and adapting an oratory to meet their needs. It would seem to me that the written word, however powerful it may be when viewed from a non-interactive perspective, cannot possibly fit the needs of every audience. In that, it loses some of its power.
ReplyDeleteCarla brings up a good point though--is our entire written history just one slow-moving, extended dialogue? Texts certainly respond to one another, evolving, contending, and progressing, but can this sort of process really have the effect of instantaneous dialogue?