Rhetoric[A Very Short Introduction] [RHETORIC] [Paperback]

Very Short Introductions #346

by RichardToye

Rhetoric[A Very Short Introduction] [RHETORIC] [Paperback]

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Language, Writing, History, Communication, Social Science

Paperback

First published March 28, 2013

Reviews

[John-Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've read a decent number of VSIs by now and this was one of the weakest. The problem is the choice of author: he knows a lot about Churchill and a decent amount about 20th-century UK and US politics. Which is to say, he knows about political speeches and their contexts and the ways that various politicians have attempted to use rhetorical strategies for political purposes. That's all fine. A book on that topic would be worth reading.

But that's not this book.

Instead, there's a short overview of various rhetorical modes, providing very little historical background or information about how or why these modes developed. Toye doesn't strike me as a guy who knows that much about Cicero or Rome; there's an "I'm gonna do just as much research as I have to do for this part" feel to these sections.

Then there are the sections about the ways that Churchill and a few others used rhetoric, and these have an "I've talked and written about this stuff a lot so I'm comfortable here" vibe. Nothing revelatory or particularly insightful.

The best thing about this book -- and yeah this is faint praise -- is that Toye hedges a lot. "This doesn't always work," "some rhetorical strategies work better with some audiences than others," "this may have been meant for a different audience altogether," etc. You can learn rhetoric but you better have judgment about when to use one mode or another.

There are exercises strewn throughout the book, none of which are inventive or noteworthy.

Maybe I should have given it two stars.

[Edward Ferrari · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty atrocious. Stylistically it doesn't seem sure what it is, the author's scholarly point of view seems too restrictive, the exercises seem tacked on, and - well, just read Sam Leith instead.

[Daniel Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chapter 1: From the Greeks to Gladstone
Chapter 2: The scaffolding of rhetoric
Chapter 3: Approaches to rhetoric
Chapter 4: Rhetoric in the modern world

[KritikKröte · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5 Sterne

Insgesamt eine sehr gute Einführung in das Thema insbesondere verstärkt durch den angenehm zügigen und guten Schreibstil, der sich bei einem Rhetorikbuch ja auch irgendwie erwarten lässt. Das Buch teilt sich in vier ebenfalls recht bündige Kapitel. Das erste handelt von der Entstehung det Rhetorik von der Antike bis ins späte 19. Jahrhundert, das zweite ist eine analytische Darstellung rhetorischer Begriffe, Kernkonzepte und Techniken, das dritte geht im Grunde tiefer darauf ein und das vierte vollendet die durch das erste begonnene Chronik der Rhetorik zu Zeiten des Totalitarismus, des Kalten Krieges und der Neuzeit.

Das zweite Kapitel "The scaffolding of rhetoric" ist zweifelsohne das beste der vier Kapitel und trägt die anderen vier über die 3 Sterne-Grenze. Das erste und dritte waren auch recht spannend und interessant, wenngleich theoretischer doch zweifelsfrei für eine umfassende Einführung notwendig. Insbesondere der zweite Teil des vierten Kapitels war allerdings geradezu unnötig: Wo der erste noch recht kurz die unterschiedliche Kriegsrhetorik des 2.WKs aufgriff, war der zweite vielmehr eine konfuse Argumentation um (ich weiß nicht mal ob dafür oder dagegen) die Rolle der Rhetorik in der amerikanischen Politik, insbesondere der "presidential rhetoric" und dem daran vermeintlich festzumachenden Rhetorik- und damit, in den Augen des Autors, ebenso dem Gesellschafts- bzw. Partizipationsverfall demokratischer Gesellschaften. Den Teil hätte man sich schon aufgrund seiner speziellen Natur eigentlich sparen können, sollte der Maxime einer "very short introduction" Folge geleistet werden wollen.

Dennoch hat mich das Buch abgeholt, insbesondere, da in den guten Kapiteln die Informationsdichte, dem Titel des Buches gerecht, entsprechend eng gestrickt war. Die Zusammenfassungen nach jedem Kapitel haben die Kernkonzepte noch einmal gut zusammengefasst. Gut waren außerdem die "exercises", die von Zeit zu Zeit beigefügt waren. Sie konnten wirklich in der Regel zum Nachdenken anregen, motivierten dazu sich mit mehreren Leuten über Rhetorik zu diskutieren und sie in ihrer praktischen Form zu praktizieren. Am besten war wohl, dass der letzte Exercise am Schluss einfach war "Rhetorically analyse this book.". Muss ich sagen, fand ich cool.

Wäre das nur Kapitel 2 gewesen, hätte ich 4-4,5 gegeben aber mit dem Rest ist es eher eine solide 4, mit Kapitel 4 also 3,5.

Ich kann das Buch jedem empfehlen, der sich für die praktische Benutzung von Sprache oder Rhetorik interessiert, würde allerdings sagen, dass man sich das letzte Kapitel schenken kann.

[rosie (donna tartt’s version)]

interesting book that teaches a history of rhetoric, the importance of it, what it ISN'T/downfalls, and how to perform a rhetorical analysis

[Brad Peterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This short, very readable treatment of rhetoric was enjoyable and enlightening. Mr. Toye gives a brief history of rhetoric from ancient days until now, describes basic techniques for rhetorical development and analysis, and explains what can, and cannot, be accomplished through rhetoric. It was interesting to see how political rhetoric has changed as we've moved from the days of written speeches into days of radio sound-bytes, and to the current days of internet communication, and how the rhetoric has become simpler, shorter, and to a great extend dumbed down (my words, not his.) Sadly, the book was written before the campaign of 'The Donald' -- I would love to know what Mr. Toye would say about the 'shock politician'.

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wanted to read up on another Very Short Introduction first, Polkinghorne's Quantum Theory and do a rhetorical analysis of this text, but really glad I stuck with Toye's VSI to discover that the way we use words, and the effect they have on others, is just as mysterious yet can be explained through observation. Perhaps if I hone my quantumeracy skills I will be able to formulate a theory for how rhetoric works in this version of the universe.

[Doreen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I used this in an professional writing class and it does supply an excellent foundation for understanding what rhetoric is, why its history is important and how it has been and continues to be used as an analytical tool and a theoretical framework for discouse production. It's very focused on political rhetoric for its examples and case studies, but overall it achieves its aims as a primer.

[Kerem · Rating 3 out of 5]

I sought a comprehensive overview of rhetoric to gain a foundational understanding of the field and pinpoint key resources and issues for further exploration. Regrettably, the author merely touched on the historical aspects, placing a disproportionate emphasis on the analysis of political speeches. This approach feels overly ambitious for a book marketed as a 'very short introduction.'

[RM · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's one of the most challenging questions of our time: why do people feel that they can embark on a public life without having at least tried to learn a thing or two about rhetoric? Well, here's a start. It's only a small book. Come on Albo, you'll knock it over in a night.

[Kevin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’ve read a lot of VSI books. This was the worst.

[N · Rating 3 out of 5]

It seems to me that what makes a classical education ‘classical’ is the absence of a slightly self-righteous post-structuralist who refuses to accept that writing, speech or ideas can be decontextualized from the time, place and person of their creation. Indeed they can be, and I came for that particular rhetoric class, not this overly political, self-aware and postmodern one. Not a worse class, just a different one, and in its defense, far more useful, relevant and accessible.

It is pointed out that rhetorical analysis isn’t the process of unlocking words to discover innate meaning, but of discovering the social meaning of words within their context. But that’s denying the possibility of the former at all. Not only would Oriental rhetoric disagree, even his own previous chapters would, where he invokes devices like alliteration and simile/metaphor. Metaphors shouldn’t exist if rhetoric didn’t preclude the possibility of encoding meaning with a layer orthogonal to the other legs of the Trivium: grammar and logic. If the science and art of rhetoric, like all science and art, have both content and form, then this book focuses solely on the former (semantics, interpretation and new criticism). Doesn't that encapsulate the modern malady of selectively weaponizing rhetoric? The Sophists have won.

Notes
Plato’s crusade against the rhetoric of Sophists (Gorgias, Republic) was also rhetoric (show them giving shallow poorly thought out arguments and then caving in the face of Socrates’ dialectic).

Plato/Socrates thought rhetoric inferior (art of persuasion rather than information) to dialectic (discovering reason, logic). Aristotle made them equal but different. Rhetoric then could persuade using Ethos (character of speaker), Pathos (put audience into proper frame of mind), and Logos (pure reason).

Isocrates’ enlightened vision of rhetoric as not just a persuading tool but also the mechanism by which we discover our own internal logic, the sage’s eye of contemplation and introspection.

No such thing as a homogenous ‘Greek culture’ that Rome inherited. Instead, various peaks of thought selectively picked up or modified to suit Roman agenda. Cicero sees that while Romans can be naturally eloquent, theoretic Greek knowledge can really weaponize it.

Roman rhetoric strong influence on Christian writings and sermons. Becomes a powerful tool for demagoguery.

Cicero/Plutarch etc rediscovered in Europe, translated into Latin from Arabic, in which Islamic world had preserved Roman knowledge in the Middle East.

Rhetoric becomes a set of rules instead of a practiced art, alongside the classical Trivium of Logic, Grammar.

Gladstone famous for highfalutin speeches, rabble-rousing against conservative govt of Disraeli.

Kairos: opportune moment. Aristotle: rhetoric is art of identifying opportunities arising from the situation at hand, not using the language’s toolkit.

5 Canons of rhetoric
Invention/Discovery:
Stasis: series of Qs like an RCA that creates levels of issues and helps you decide which to focus on, to what degree of detail etc
Topos: ways of looking at an issue to help generate arguments. Eg: Comparison (relativize, metaphorize), or Cause-Effect (contextualize, explicate)
Arrangement: introduction, facts, outline of speech, proof, refutation of opposing points, conclusion
Style
Delivery
Memory: visualize parts of speech using symbols to reconstruct the argument.

Tricolon: Egalite/Liberte/Fraternite; Life/Liberty/Pursuit of happiness; Demosthenes puts delivery in 1st/2nd/3rd place. Education/Education/Education.

Antithesis: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country (antimetabole).

Anaphora/Epiphora (repetition: tell them what you’re going to tell them. Tell them. Then tell them what you told them.

Prolepsis: anticipate objections and then refute them, inoculating yourself.

Paralepsis: bring up something, pretending to gloss over it (I see no reason to dwell on his drinking problem)

Enthymeme: truncate a syllogism showing shared understanding (1) Vangelis won 2) because he is Athenian: ie implying shared 3) Athenians are the best)

Narrative analysis: not to check if right or wrong, but as the way the speaker articulates his identity and makes sense of his environment.

Anti-intellectual president: Flesch Readability Formula shows presidential speeches have been becoming drastically simpler. In itself, this is good, but it’s become such a dogma that it creates an aversion to complexity and intellectualism itself.

[Josiah DeGraaf · Rating 3 out of 5]

As the title suggests, this is a very short introduction, so you kind of get what you're coming from. The book has a decent overview of the historical development of rhetoric and an interesting unpacking of the strengths and weaknesses of different rhetorical approaches. What I most got out from this book was certain points it made regarding the importance of kairos in rhetoric and the different ways rhetors need to match their speeches to specific occasions. Overall, I found it an interesting read and enjoyed reading it, but found it to be mostly review--at least for me.

Rating: 3.5 Stars (Good).

[Corwin Slack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Meets its ends

The author concludes with an apt quote from Henry James: ‘All life […] comes back to the question of our speech, the medium through which we communicate with each other; for all life comes back to the question of our relations with one another.’

While it includes some of the features of a handbook it also explores the history and development of rhetoric as a study and discipline including the current day. It also includes an interesting section on rhetorical analysis.

[Mihai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just a comment: I think that most reviewers are minimizing the value of this book, considering it limited to the anglosphere world with more focus on the speech and not on rhetoric as a theory. I see it as a wrong assumption, the book does the job of upgrading a reader with some experience in sensing a rhetorical text/speech by pointing different styles used through time.
I liked it, I took some notes from it, it was definitely worth my time.

[Natalie Stinehour · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for my Rhetoric and Memoir class, but still read the entire book, so I'm logging it lol. It honestly was very entertaining for a textbook, and I actually really liked it. Great textbook on rhetoric, if you're looking to learn about the history of rhetoric and how its evolved over time def give this a read

[Otilia Parisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars.

Read for a rhetorical analysis assignment. Good for understanding the background and history of rhetoric's. Would have preferred a larger part on analysis, but that's really a me problem. Certain paragraphs and the structure could have been better.

[Samuel Hilton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty dam good

[Kara ✨]

Forever confused when it comes to rating or discussing required reading. 😬

[Gloria · Rating 3 out of 5]

A serviceable introduction to rhetoric, though I don't really know enough about the topic to be able to judge if all of the important points were indeed mentioned.

[Annalisa Soldani · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is more of an introduction to the history of rhetoric than an introduction to rhetoric. The latter implies it will be encompass practical usage and implementation hints and tips.

[Caomhghain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lived up to its theme well - though slightly over concentrated on politics. But gives an excellent overall view of the subject both historically and as a contemporary phenomenon.

[Strick · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the better ones in the series. A great

[Stefano · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s a short introduction to rhetoric. It’s interesting if you’re interested. Otherwise it’s pretty academic and can be boring at times.

[Charlie Siringo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Decent starter for ten. Would have liked a guide to actually writing decent rhetoric and a glossary of rhetorical devices

[Andrew J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

powerful discussion of Rhetoric

Well worth the time to read and the money to buy it. Opened my eyes to many things. Engineers need rhetoric too.

[Erika · Rating 3 out of 5]

Should be called "Political Rhetoric"

[Taylor Swift Scholar · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was fine. I learned some new things, but not as much as I would have liked.

[Camille · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't enjoy this book very much. It was really dry, and there wasn't a whole lot that was new information to me (someone who really likes literature, but has never studied rhetoric). So far, I'm not impressed with the Very Short Introduction series. I'll likely only give the series one more chance before I give up on it.

This book sought to make a positive case for rhetoric. Toye said that rhetoric is "an essential part of the democratic process", and that the meaning of words can't be determined just from an isolated instance. You have to look at how words are said, by whom they are said, and how they're received in order to really understand what they mean.

Toye did introduce one idea that I found particularly fascinating, I have to admit. He said that rhetoric isn't just the way that we express ideas, but also the way that we form them. A quote: "The process of debate forces [speakers/writers] to articulate positions which, although they may believe that they have always held them, may in fact be quite novel."

And another interesting quote: "If we want to understand a society's politics, economics, sociology, psychology, or morality, then there is no better way to start than looking at the way it talks about those things -- and the way it talks about the way those things ought to be talked about."

The book went through the history of rhetoric and different strategies that various groups of rhetors had. For example, the Sophists liked using arguments based on probability. The author knew a lot about contemporary British politics and rhetoric, and so he spent a lot of time talking about it. Admittedly, it was hard for me to follow because of my own lack of knowledge.

Good practices in writing and speaking were mentioned in the book also. Structure is just as important for making compelling, coherent arguments as delivery.

The book also goes into how to analyze speeches and texts. For example, it's important to think about what the author assumes or implies about his audience (i.e., who are they, where are they from, what do they believe, etc).

I agree with most of the ideas Toye presented (like when he said that arguing about things makes us better arguers), and his book seemed very well researched, however it was just boring to get through. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

[Stevedutch · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’d recently finished and enjoyed Sam Leith’s ‘You talkin’ to me?’ and thoroughly enjoyed it so I thought I’d give this a go. I have to say that, in contrast, it suffers! It’s noticeably more academic in tone and the first chapter; a potted history of rhetoric that covers similar ground to Leith’s is tinder dry by comparison. However, it does improve in Chapter 2, which looks at the structure of rhetoric and the last chapter too is interesting, looking as it does at the use of rhetoric by the major powers during the Second World War and comparing the democracies with the totalitarian regimes of Nazis Germany, Italy, USSR and Japan.

Nevertheless, although this volume contains a few exercises to do in group, I would recommend Leith’s before this every time for anyone wanting only one book, otherwise, at the price, it is an inexpensive complementary source.