Sunday, September 6, 2009
I Blame Cicero
I am not sure what to think about the readings from Matsen. As I read through the sections of these ancient texts, I was impressed at how thorough these men were when it came to discussing their field. The long lists of different types of style, different purposes for speaking, ways to adapt to the audience all seemed to be a great resource for young students. As I think about it a little bit more though, I am not so sure that I feel the same way. What we find is a very prescriptive set of rules that must be followed in order to be “a good speaker.” I have seen very little that encourages students to break these rules in order to provide their audience with something new and unique. It seems to me that if everyone has read Cicero’s treatise on defending and prosecuting a court case, then those involved are really just going through the motions. You know what the other person is going to say, and then you respond in the appropriate manner. There seems to be less emphasis on speakers thinking for themselves, and more focus on pluggin different topics into the same mold.If every speaker ended up following the same pattern in their orations, then it seems like the audience would begin to lose interest. Eventually they would find themselves in a society that was complete disinterested in listening to public speakers because they all “sound the same.” Wait, I think we are that society. Thanks Cicero.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ha! That's it. I wonder if "invention" had a different meaning for them than it does for us.
ReplyDeleteOf course, most of these deep thinkers didn't believe anyone could create anything better than what they themselves expressed - because they all thought they were the last word on oratory -
but there are only so many ways anyone can "teach" speech-making - because there are only so many ways of giving a speech (unless you count Shakespeare as a speech-writer).
I agree with your opinion on the strict molds of speeches and the strict instruction on rhetoric as being disinteresting for the audience. The back and forth motions of the forum reminded me a lot of the etiquette used in early British warfare: the “I’ll shoot first, then you go, then it’s my turn again” pattern. This is n impractical approach to victory in warfare, and can be likened to the etiquette in rhetoric. In Conely’s reading last week concerning the war between the Athenians and the Melians, the Athenians used discourse “for the sake of appearance when the reality is quite different” because “having might is equated to being right”. Rhetoric in courtrooms and political is nothing more than a form of war between two oppositions: “Discourse is place at the service of Brute Power” (Conley 2) . Where is the Gurreilla warfare in all of this? Even the “improvisational” characteristic that Alcidamas stressed in rhetoric were scripted in structure, not truly organic or “on the spot”. Pull a Kerouac and go against the conventions is what I say! Blindside the audience and your adversary—that’ll get their attention.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Cicero's "formulas," we'll call them, are necessarily that confining. In studying composition I was intrigued to go back years later and re-read various essays built on the five paragraph model and see where the underlying structure existed within the essay. However this doesn't make everything sound/read alike as much as it seems like it would. I think as far as speeches the formulas work the same way. However I brought up that question in another comment elsewhere that I'm not sure if these formulas work with the way our brains work, or if it's something culturally learned. I'm leaning more towards the latter, which means breaking the rules could be very effective.
ReplyDelete