I have been chomping at the bit to finally read Burke after all the references that have been made throughout my short involvement in English/Rhetoric/Composition/Whatever-the-hell-it-is-I-just-don't-know-anymore (by Rob Pope, Dr. Stacey and my friend Amanda...). I think it's funny that the timing worked out perfectly--right when I have decided I am a Serious Person and dead-set against ever calling myself Rhetorical-with-a-capital-R. I fear that I have rhetoric poisoning.
That being said, though, I found the first two chapters to this book to be easy to read, engaging, relevant and fast-moving. Blakesley's representation of dramatism and dramatistic analysis using the Burkean pentad ties an understanding of rhetoric to material reality with current relevancy.
The call to interpret our interpretations is brilliant. Blakesley's model of the pentad in action analyzing the Colmbine school shootings is very interesting. I'm not sure how it is supposed to move toward any clarity though; I guess it is more a technique for finding all the possible ways to look at a situation or action, exploring for new, unexamined perspectives or terrain. In that way I see it as broadening the scope of investigation-- looking for the most holistic means of solving/understanding/learning from a situation rather than finding the path of least resistance. In that sense I think the pentad is a tool for writing teachers that gets at a very different aspect of writing than most prewriting and revision strategies. While it may take more "work" on the part of the writer and make the process of finding an argument on a given issue more complicated, it could lead to more thought-out, solid and profound ideas. Way to go Burke; and now I understand why I never used the pentad once with a student in my five years working in the Writing Lab. (not to say that I wouldn't ever use it-- just that I didn't have the knowledge to frame it correctly, and I'm usually working with students who want to demystify the writing process rather than explore the endless possibilities...)
Chapter 2 was also quite engaging. The "Parlor" explanation of discourse (52) is the clearest representation I have encountered and the way that Burke was analyzing Hitler's rhetoric was commendable. Burke's got my vote. This dramatistic analysis of his is incredibly powerful for political awareness-building. Many of the components of Hitler's rhetorical strategy that Burke outlines can be seen in nationalist rhetoric surrounding wars of today. Scary shit--but if Burke was already publishing work about the danger of rhetorical skill like Hitler's, why are we living today in a world where the skill doesn't even have to be that of the leader, just his speech writers??
Burke's whole identification thing is really interesting too. I think it's a good way to explain rhetoric in terms and concepts that are less evasive than, say, Houdini. He had a different way of looking at things, it seems, and I think his explanations work for me. The discussion of form as a rhetorical function involving "the manipulation of expectations and their subsequent gratification" (55) is very interesting.
That's my response in a nutshell: I find Burke's take on things to be very, very interesting. This should have been a preface, but if you have made it this far it can now be a reward: I'm very sick right now and my head it just not working right. I know this is all scattered and may only make sense to me--but hey, it's my blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment