I think I just made a break through on how I read. I don't know how I can tie this into rhetoric exactly, but it happened while reading the assigned readings for Tuesday.
So, we're finally out of the old, harder to read rhetoricians, and I was expecting to pick up Jackie and Gesa and be able to follow their train of thought in a much easier fashion. Modern rhetoric = easier to read, right? Wrong. It's not for lack of concentration, or interest (because feminist rhetoric is an interesting subject to me), but I found myself having to read passages and single sentences over and over again. I literally couldn't focus my mind. Until I hit this passage:
"Desser identifies the tensions between the missonary women expressed in their desire to connect with the students they taught and the larger community into which they moved (made evident by their efforts to learn the Hawaiian language, for example) at the same time they continued to believe in the superiority of the English language and of Christian values, beliefs, and moral codes" (77).
And instantly, an image of a uppity women in white gowns and severe buns teaching in a schoolroom in Hawaii jumped into my head. I didn't have to read the passage over again; I knew exactly what had just happened. And it hit me - my largest problem with academic writing is that I'm a visual learner - and I cannot come up with a picture in my head for what is happening while I read an academic text. Suddenly, the reason that I found texts like Phaedrus and works by Frederick Douglass so easy to read is because I always had a clear picture in my head of what was happening while I read, painted by their text - something that I have not been able to do with almost any of the other texts this entire semester.
*head implodes*
I need to find a different way to approach these readings instead of beating my head against a wall. That is going to have to be my main focus with the rest of the readings this semester, I believe.
Awesome insight. I hadn't thought about my learning type in a long time. I'm very kinesthetic, and then visual... auditory is far down there, so my problem comes in when things are read to me. If there are other noises, I can't hear anything coherent at all. Sounds blend together and become white noise. If oral is all I get, it seeps out pretty fast unless I am actively (kinesthetically) engaging in my act of listening. As far as the reading is concerned, I am with you. It is difficult for me to get something out of reading a text (any text). I have to scour and devour. I can't skim. I have to engage (kinesthetically) each word (or at least each phrase -- which is why I could not stand Locke). If it is particularly visual narrative (or inclusive of other sensory information), it helps me tremendously to engage imaginative faculties (again, kinesthetically) to create a mental picture of what's going on. I suggest, find a way to make the text a visual experience for you.
ReplyDeleteI also want to note, how the authors also have to "connect with.. the larger community into which they [move]." (that being, in this case, academia). Think back to how narrative and sensory their introductions were. Remember how easy those were to read? I bet, if given the choice, that would be their method of delivery, but, alas, they must operate within the constraints of their discourse community, and a structure and language is expected of them if they wish to publish books.
Good luck on your quest for comprehension. Know that you're journey lies on a well worn path and that you have at least one classmate (and I'm sure there are others) who want to scream "Tell me a story, not just fancy-pants words!" We'll get through it and we'll feel better for having learnt something about rhetoric... and ourselves (as learners of it). :)
I absolutely feel your pain! As readers as well as students, we are subjected to two different worlds of language--the literary and the academic. The literary hemisphere is engaging, enjoyable, and socially and culturally relevant. One of its principal purposes is to engage the reader; indeed a literary author who did not seek to do this would be writing in vain of her purpose.
ReplyDeleteThe academic, on the other hand, does not seek to engage, it seeks to discuss a specific topic with a specific community. It assumes that its audience is captive, and will come to it, rather than vis versa. It is, undoubtedly, hard to read. Seeking to inform, and to persuade of an academic standpoint, the academic piece is dry, formal, and devoid of emotion. It concerns itself only with truth, absolute truth, and deals not with the social and cultural truths, the passionate truths, that the literary piece does.
What came to a shock to me, as it did with you, is that until recently we've been reading literary works--Plato, Cicero, Pizan--these are NOT, contrary to my belief at the time, works in the academic realm. They are literature. And though they are difficult to plow through, with their old, twisted language, they are in a great sense much more relatable than the readings for today. Though modern by comparison, Kirsch and Ryster write in an academic, sociological manner that drives me up a wall.