BYAHHHH!!!! - A Rhetorical Situation

While Reading "A Rhetorical Situation" by Lloyd Blitzer, I couldnt help but laughing at a portion of text in the first few pages of his essay. He mentions the fact that "each reader probably can recall a specific time and place when there was an opportunity to speak on some urgent matter, and after the opportunity was gone he created in private thought the speech he should have uttered earlier in the situation." When I read this I couldnt help but point out that there have been many times in history that the reader had probibially wished he had not said something when he did, and as a result it formed a negative rhetoric that was used against him either deliberately or unintentionally.

The best example I recalled was during the 2004 Democratic Presidential Nomination, when Howard Dean was speaking at a rally about the future of his campaign and in a moment of over-enthusiasm, he uttered a gutteral "BYAHHH!!!!" on live television. This 30 second clip served as the end of his campaign as the audience simply could not take him seriously after the endless press storm surrounding the event. He eventually lost the nomination, but gratefully provided a terrific example of rhetorical backfiring. Blitzer hit the nail on the head when he stated that  "every audience at any moment is capable of being changed in some way by speech," and it truely does occur wither intentional or not on the speakers part.

Aristotle's Riddle of Rhetoric

Although I was told reading Aristotle's Rhetoric was as confusing as reading it in the original Attic Greek, I found it to be no more difficult than any other really technical writing I have encountered. Aristotle made some very good points about rhetoric and its uses in the political, forensic, and ceremonial contexts. He also made a pretty observation that all men use rhetoric to discuss statements, maintain them, and defend or attack them when provoked.

I found it pretty funny that he referenced a court in Areopagus that did not allow talk pertaining to "non-essentials," namely things that would cause a judge to make a ruling on his emotions as opposed to facts. Its slightly ironic that the ancient Greeks foresaw this problem, because today it seems that is the main tool that lawyers use to persuade juries to give out the verdicts they desire for their clients. Aristotle was point on when he said that "it is of great moment that well-drawn laws should themselves define all the points they possibly can and leave as few as many to be to the decision of the judges." I fully agree with this statement, due to the fact today, even laws as explicitly defined as murder can be twisted and altered in a courtroom to be portrayed as something it is not, or into something less than it appears to the normal viewer.

Almost borrowing from the phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword," Aristotle put in a very witty comment on how he thinks it is absurd that a man should be ashamed of being unable to defend himself physically, but not to be ashamed if he cannot defend himself with speach and reason. He even points out that the ability to use rational speech is one of the things that defines us as humans as opposed to being just another animal in the food chain. I find it a little ironic that Aristotle's puple Alexander the Great, did not seem to heed the words of his tutor, and proceeded to conquer nearly the entire known world.

Overall the reading went by pretty well with my cup of morning coffee. I enjoyed listening to and contemplating the thoughts of a man who has been studied and critiqued since before the time of Christ. It stuns me to think of how many other generations of men have read his works and have been spurred to think more about the uses of rhetoric and language as a form of offensive and defensive prose, instead of merely shooting the breeze.