Hugh Burns, Rhetoric, and Computers

The discussion last week was fascinating. I thoroughly enjoyed all that was presented by Dr. Burns (Dr. because we're west of the Mississippi, were we to the east it would be Mr.). As others have noted here, he did a wonderful job of addressing a variety of topics with a comfortable authority that was welcoming rather than daunting or pedantic.

I hesitate to say this as it probably reflects more on th student than the teachers, but I have sat through these classes on writing theory so far going where were my instructors at the Y? ("The Y" is one of many student [or Utah native] nicknames for BYU.) I don't remember my writing instruction lining up with rhetoric or expressionism, and it certainly did not begin to approach cultural studies. In coming into this class I feel I've been introduced to rhetoric for the first time. Somewhere along the way I had picked up a simplistic understanding of pathos and logos, and an entirely incorrect (if common) one of ethos and ethics. However, I never discussed writing in terms of patterns of reasoning, making claims, or any other explicit rhetorical language. I do remember being given explicit instruction in developing arguable theses (essentially making a claim, but it was never expressed that way), fully developing each paragraph, and I remember writing a lot of papers. Thinking of the equivalent of Freshmen comp, it was the worst class I took at BYU. I hated it. The advanced composition course, which I remember much more fondly, is much more associated in my mind with the specific papers I wrote, and the work done with other students and with the teacher to develop and address specific writing projects. I don't remember much theory at all.

Blah, blah, blah right? Well it is relevant because it ties me to this course in a strange way. I am grabbing at all kinds of things as I sit here that make me want to scream "I knew that!", but didn't really have a name for it. Its as if I knew these things subconsciously and am now bringing them out into the open with names as conscious tools and techniques for writing and writing instruction. It feels marvelous. Occasionally, however, as I noted in responding to the article on femininist research, I feel swamped by the language of the particular discourse community I'm trying to enter. The thorough grounding in rhetoric provided by Dr. Burns was wonderful, and spoke to me, I think (to a lesser degree as I have yet to directly encounter Aristotle for myself) in a way very much like he recounts his discovery of rhetoric spoke to him.

Understanding where all of this comes from and how it fits together through the history he provided was wonderful. In addition he explained a question I've had all along and for one reason or another never got around to asking. That is, what exactly are all these people talking about when they title something "A Rhetioric of __________." His explanation was simple, direct and supportive, lending dignity to the question and to me for asking, which I really appreciated. He told me that any such title is essentially indicating that it will in fact be discussing "The Rhetorical effects of ___________." This opened a lot of doors in reference to past presentations and readings.

I guess one of the reasons I didn't ask was that I thougth I had a good enough basic idea to be getting on with, and that it would become clearer. After getting the answer to my question (brought to the fore as well by the fact that several of Booth's key books seem to have been "A Rhetoric of _________."), I realize that I did not in fact have a very good understanding at all. The idea that we can and should study the rhetorical effects of a given type or form of discourse on the participants makes a lot of sense. So much so that it has completely replaced my previous clouded understanding to the piont that I don't remember exactly what I thought it was.

It was interesting to encounter one of the people responsible for making the computer programs I use smart enough to interfere with what I'm trying to do. Now if I was smart enough to use the interference to my advantage perhaps we'd have accomplished something. Seriously though, Burns' discussion of his work with computers and the manner in which they are applied to writing and learning processes was fascinating. I was accustomed to swear lightly and attack the close button when I saw that little paper clip (or any of its various permutations), but will perhaps think of it more kindly in the future.