While reading The Rhetorical Stance, I automatically noticed that this article seemed to combine the ideas of both of the previous articles I have commented on. Booth focused mainly on how rhetoric required a certain balance of recognizing and incorporating the audience, as well as staying true to the logistics and facts of the topic, regardless of what the audience is more likely to respond to.
I personally enjoyed how Booth included personal experiences, with interactions from his own students and lessons he himself learned through his writing endeavors. From these, I gained better insight on how an in depth understanding of rhetoric and the need of an audience to be recognized are so critical for quality writing. Throughout the article, I found myself becoming more and more engaged, contrary to my normal inability to concentrate for over ten minutes at a time. I correlate this to the amount of examples, and the specific yet not too drawn out reasoning for his ideas.
If I were to personally meet with Booth, I would first off be extremely excited, for after reading his article I became very fond of both his writing techniques and his ideas of the three types of stances. I would probably even bring a sample of my own writing, and ask him to critique it, and to explain in his own words to me how I should approach my rhetorical stance to help improve my writing. What impressed me the most about this article by Booth is how he wrote it exactly how he described the rhetorical stance to be. He kept the audience in mind, but stayed true to his ideas and motives of writing the paper, keeping me captivated, interested, and when finished reading it, a motivation to try and obtain the balance of the rhetorical stance in all of my writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment