the Rhetorical question

What a pompous jackass. Ramage--and I hate to resort to name calling--we get it. You're smart. To bury us in your own steamy piles of rhetoric was both unfair and unnecessary, pal. We're your eager students and the first thing you offer is a 30-page block so dense it would make Conrad queasy? Right.

This is why I think what I do:

First, the constant Greek philosophy reminders. Anyone who references Socrates and Aristotle for anything is either a hack or an insufferable bore. Period. Yes, the history of rhetoric is closely linked with deep thoughts and olive branches, but the effect on us, your audience, of repetitively dragging these be-sandled thinkers into the intro is that you immediately turn us off from anything else you might say. We're disengaged from the get-go. And that's no way to start a book, pal.

Second, quoting poetry. It's risky, but can be reasonable if done right. You did not do it right. Mahoney looked up your beloved Roethke's "The Waking," and found that you misquoted him, which makes me believe you bent his words to fit your ideas. That's just bad ju-ju. The man--however full of himself--was an artist. Intellectuals don't get to change an artist's work, just bitch about and interpret it. Also, you only quote one guy and only one of his poems. If you're going to write a long-winded and altogether lame intro that people will be forced to read, at least put out some creative effort, Mr. Rhetoric. Furthermore, like referencing the ancient philosophers, quoting poetry really gives you a pompous air that immediately turns people off. Way to go.

Next, your stampeding vocab. Whoa, look out everybody, here comes Ramage's gigantic brain. Don't let it crush you. Yeah, like I said, we get it.

And last (but just for here), anyone who writes the word expert in quotes is not to be trusted. Sorry, pal. By doing so, you're implying that YOU are an expert, but doctors, lawyers, philosophers, professors, scientists and anyone else who spent a crap-load of money to "buy" their diploma(s) is somehow cut-rate and less worthy than thou. Well, just because you wrote a book about an abstract idea which has subtly governed most of human civilization with a shadowy hand doesn't mean by any stretch that you have the right to criticize. All your understanding of rhetoric does is put you in the company of some of the greatest manipulators in history. Rasputin was pretty persuasive, eh?

* *

So on a side note to Mahoney, I just want to express my sincere hope that the rest of the info in this book is either written in a completely different style (one that makes reading 30 pages in under two hours possible), or is going to be infinitely useful in making us all very rich someday.