Chapter One

1) Hi! My name is Emily. I’m a sophomore Professional Writing major. I commute the 25 minutes to KU everyday while listening to Harry Potter on tape in my car. I love reading, writing, sleeping in, and sunny days. I’m not sure exactly what I want to do with my major after I graduate, but I’m interested in editing, creative writing, and magazine writing.

2) I have to admit, the Serious Person in me became slightly distressed when Ramage declared in the first paragraph that there would be no definition of rhetoric. I’m the kind of person that likes to know definitions, details, and exactly what I’m up against. Sadly, that is not the way of rhetoric. Bravely, I read on.

When Ramage called the world of rhetoric one of “overlapping truths,” it made sense to me by reminding me of writing poetry. When I write a poem, I don’t search for logical progressions of thought to put on my paper; I try to find something subjective, situational, and strong that still rings true in the context of the poem. Something that is effective in one poem might not be as powerful in another.

The concept of truth as it’s used in rhetoric also made me think about audience. When Ramage assumed the position of an Anti-Rhetorician, he argued that, to Rhetoricians, effect on audience mattered more than the truth of an argument. This was an interesting point, and I think it’s probably true, but not in a negative way. If truth is situational, then effect on an audience very well could be a better judge of argument.

When Ramage talks later in the chapter about rhetoricians’ tendencies to blur limits and search for new comparisons, it made a lot of sense to me. I think that is what keeps poetry and conversations new, and maybe that is what generates truth.