October 25

I find the differences between the ancient and modern views on arrangement of rhetoric interesting.  I thought it was particularly interesting how today there are formulas for writing different types of works, different ways to arrange dependent on purpose.  On the other hand the book mentions that the composition of an introduction could be altered dependent on the author's perception of the audience which is similar to what writer's do today, altering how they form their argument to best convince their audience; although today we base this on the best way to convince the audience while in the book it talks about changing an argument so the audience best accepts the author's ethos.

The four parts, introduction, narration, proof, and conclusion, was also interesting as was the six parts, introduction, statement of the issue, division of the issue into its constituent parts, where the rhetor's strongest arguments are made, where arguments that can damage a rhetor's case are anticipated and refuted, and a conclusion.  Whether the four part model or the six part model wither of these two could be very useful even in modern day rhetoric to make ones argument stronger.  I agree that the introduction is incredibly important in order to prepare the audience for the rest of the argument.  Also, I most definitely agree that the introduction should be written after the rest of the argument.

The five kinds of cases also somewhat interested me.  I found myself thinking about the honorable and difficult like any major argument today, for example politics, the honorable would be the political party of the audience while the difficult would be the other political party, a democrat speaking to other democrats for example would have immediate support from the audience while a democrat speaking to republicans would have an unsympathetic audience.  The other three I could not think of as good of examples for but mean seems to kind of be an argument the audience doesn't care about while ambiguous might be about a topic the audience wants to learn more about and obscure is when someone is arguing something outside the audience's skill set using terms the audience is unfamiliar with.  I do however disagree that honorable cases need no introduction, just because the audience is already on one's side does not mean they should not be properly informed and I think an introduction can be an important part of that.

The topics for making audiences attentive seems like it would be quite useful to any rhetoric being comprised today.  First to show the importance of the issue, to show how the issue affects the audience, show how the issues effects everyone, show how the issue affect the general good of the community; essentially they are the so what question, why is this important, why does it matter, so what?  On the other hand the topics for making audiences receptive I somewhat question.  To strengthen your ethos makes sense but if taken to far could make the author seem conceited and the audience less receptive.  The same issues applies to weakening the ethos of an opponent if taken too far is makes the author seem mean and unapproachable.  Showing respect for the audience can also be taken too far and seem like sucking up to the audience.  The safest suggestion is to "praise [the] issue or position while denigrating [the] position of opponents" but even that is a bit of a balance.

The other points about sections of an argument were also considerably interesting.  For example the three types of narrative, definitive, values, and procedural, could most definitely apply to my own writing and could be something to keep in mind.  As is the three options for the conclusion and the parts therein; summary, appeal to the emotions, and enhancing ethos.