After reading the style
chapter in Ancient Rhetorics for
Contemporary Students I wondered if the style that was mentioned in this
book is similar to the definition of style I believe in. When I think of style
I imagine a correlation between voice, tone, and word selection not the four
qualities of style followed by the ancient rhetors. I believe style can be
unique for any author. When writers, rhetor or simply a writer, follow a
criteria they traditionally become known for it creates a style for them, their
form of writing. Today, a writer can write in a serious manner or with extreme
humor. Nevertheless, I believe it to be style, something that an author is
known for doing in her writing, like utilizing metaphors, but not similes in
all of her writings. With this chapter style was deciphered into four
qualities: correctness, clearness, appropriateness, and ornament, no of which
reflect style to me personally. While the claims for each word argued how and
why a rhetor should use and how to use it with rhetoric, I never found a reason
as to how it is related to style, at least not a good reason that I agreed
with. It is obvious that rhetors should use modern words and adhere to
grammatical rules when writing, but how does this necessarily create style if
every rhetor is doing it, it is not unique, but instead a requirement. Clarity
is also an obvious factor when dealing with rhetoric. The wording a rhetor uses
for a work piece is probably going to be different than his layman vocabulary.
Vice versa, he probably would not utilize his everyday vocabulary if he is
giving a formal and or professional presentation or speech. Appropriateness
obviously relates to kairos and the specific timing of a rhetor. Although
timing is essential to oration, it is not so much important to style, at least
in my opinion. If any, ornament is the only one out of the four that can relate
to style since it deals with the use of unusual or extraordinary language, language
that can make a style original.
No comments:
Post a Comment