Figures of Speech Served Fresh

Dear Figaro,

A propos of your point at the end of the "How to Seduce a Cop" book segment {http://www.inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/seduce-a-cop/}, don't we wimps earn the world's resentment easily? The fighters and especially martyrs froth with jealousy at those who concede points, don't get angry, and get their way. Is political or financial power the only evasion of that hate? And is the maintenance of the power to keep the resentful ones distant the one case for aggression? (I'm thinking about Israel's poised mixture of diplomatic words with scary violence.)

Spencer

--------------------

Dear Spencer,

The resentment of extremists is one of the pleasures of moderation. And if you're getting your way, what's the point of denying yourself that resentment?

I half agree with you about Israel. Scary violence, yes. But poised diplomacy? If that's poised, I'd hate to see the Israelis when they're upset.

Don't get me wrong, Spencer. I don't think that rhetoric alone will save the world. But without it, we're doomed.

Yrs,
Figaro

Dear Figaro,

I was reading about your upcoming book {http://www.inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/why-americans-cant-argue/} and read the following: "If it weren't for the wine, I would have shrunk in embarrassment. People at other tables were looking at us, and they were laughing—with us, most likely, but still. Here in the States, only the rude and the insane disagree in private conversation. "

Am I missing what you are expressing or did you mean public conversation?

Thanks,
Anne

------------------

Dear Anne,

I meant "private" in the sense of "not in the media," which really isn’t very clear, is it? Maybe I should change it to: “Here in the States, we reserve open disagreement to the rude, the insane, and politicians.”

Does that make sense? It’s a figure called “anesis,” in which the previous examples diminish the last one. (See my exchange with Michael, a little farther down this page.)

And thanks for the catch, Anne.


Yrs,
Fig.

Dear Figaro,

I was just reading the Drudge Report and saw two quotes. One was by that oh-so-slightly degenerate rock star, George Michaels: "I have been doing this on and off since I was a teenager..." Another was put forth by our mildly suspect Tour de France winner, Floyd Landis: 'All I'm asking for is that I be given a chance to prove I'm innocent." I recognized there were two different types of rhetoric at play and wondered which ones they were.

Martha

-----------------------

Dear Martha,

Michaels commits the fallacy of antecedent: it's happened before so it's OK. Floyd employs an age-old appeal to procedure: let the system prove I'm guilty.

In rhetoric, at least, Floyd didn't cheat.

Yrs,
Figaro

Hey Fig:

Came across these lines during my transcription of JFK's Rice University Address:

"This year's space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at 5 billion-400 million dollars a year -- a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year."

Q: In 5 secs. or less, name the figure that occurs at the end....Ready, GO!

Yes, the Republicans ARE doing a better job of rhetorizing their ideas; but perhaps those ideas make for better rhetoric. ;-)

Michael

Dear Michael,
It's a paraprosdokian, certainly, the surprise-ending figure. (The term alone takes 5 seconds to pronounce.) In a way, it's also an argumentum ad fortiori--if we can afford cigarettes, we can afford space. And it's an epitrope, which concedes an argument, usually ironically.
Yrs,
Figaro

[NOTE: Michael followed up with an email saying he had anesis in mind, a figure that's not yet in Figaro's list of rhetorical terms. The anesis ends a point with a clause or sentence that diminishes what the speaker said before. It's a superb figure of irony, which Kennedy uses superbly. You stumped us, Michael! By the way: Michael does a great rhetoric website of his own, AmericanRhetoric.com.]

Dear Figaro,
Love today's blog [July 26: four-word summaries.]. What other political issues can you squeeze down to four words? The stem cell one was a fine start!
Dorothy

Dear Dorothy,

Abortion: Bods or dead babies?

Gun control: Constitutional gun-slinging.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Toodle-oo caribou

Figaro welcomes more entries.

Dear Figaro,
I introduced someone to your site. Her response -"Fark headline writer with an Ivy League diploma". Might be close, besides she is really attractive.
Dan

Dear Dan,
I don’t have an Ivy diploma (worked there but went to Middlebury), haven’t written headlines in years, and don’t even know what “fark” means. But since she’s attractive I’m happy to concede.
Yrs,
Fig.

Dear Figaro,
Is there no difference between chiasmus and antimetabole?
Hal

Dear Hal,
No, there's little difference between the two, though some rhetoricians say the chiasmus duplicates the clauses more precisely.
Yrs,
Fig.

Dear Figaro,
Do you know if there is a rhetorical term for "I won't mention this damning fact" and then proceeding to mention it? I could have sworn I read it on a daily figure, and I can't find it!
If you can help, I'd be very grateful indeed.
If not, thanks anyway for brightening my day. I've turned on some of my students to your site too.
Carrie

Dear Carrie,
Actually, there are several:
Apophasis
Ennoia
Paralipsis
Thanks for the kind words. Please let other teachers know of the site as well.
Yrs,
Figaro

Dear Figaro,
I would like to know what kind of language this is:

"Kent: Arnie, this is not the time ...
Arnie: You're not the time, Kent, you're not the time."
from snpp.com/episodes/CABF16.
I don't think it's just "elenchus."
Please tell me,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,
No, it's not an elenchus. I'd call it several things:
1. An ad hominem attack, specifically one that goes after the adversary's "eunoia" (good will). It's a common political technique, declaring the opponent to be out of touch.
2. It's also a palilogia, an emphatic repetition.
3. Also a conduplicatio, which repeats a phrase in succeeding clauses.
You could also call it a kind of ploce, which changes the meaning of a word through its repetition. But because Arnie's meaning change is meaningless, I'll count that one out.
Yrs,
Figaro

[NOTE: THE FIRST POSTS ARE COPIED FROM EMAIL EXCHANGES WITH FIGARO.]

Is the word "Daily" in "Daily Figure" a figure of speech? If so, what kind? Or - am I missing out on these (great!) emails 3 days out of 5?
Thanks,
Lisa

Dear Lisa,
It's a figure of speech called a "lie." I've been having software trouble. (That's an "excuse.")
Yrs,
Fig.

Dear Figaro,
Where are the "figures" from the likes of Billery, Kerry, Dean....
Just wondering, maybe they're not capable.
John

Dear John,
You'll find 'em, and there are more to come, John, but I figure that figures, like journalism, should afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, and the Republicans just happen to be in power at the moment. They're also far more capable of rhetoric than their dopey counterparts.
Thanks for reading.
Yrs,
Figaro

Hi, Figaro!
Just discovered your website, and it's great!
I was wondering if you've ever read E. W. Bullinger's massive work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. This was my first introduction to chiasmus, epanodos, etc. which are used extensively in the Scriptures (each book is "structured" and "sub-structured" with these patterns).
Bullinger's work "classifies" the figures, gives numerous examples from biblical passages. A great resource.
Thanks, Figaro, for a wonderful website!
Rick

Dear Rick,
Well, I’ve read IN it, certainly, and you’re right: it’s as definitive as any guide on figures can be. Check out the Bullinger website: http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/bullinger/FiguresOfSpeech.html. And thanks for the kind words.
Yrs,
Fig.

[NOTE: THE FIRST POSTS ARE COPIED FROM EMAIL EXCHANGES WITH FIGARO.]

Dear Figaro old chap,
Why haven't you taken on the lovely Ann Coulter? Are you beguiled by her looks? Oh, how I daresay I'd love to read one of your "snappy answers" to Ms. Coulter's diatribes.
Thanks,
Fred

Dear Fred,
Frankly, I find Miss Coulter something of a rhetorical cipher. Any boob, pardon the expression, can shock people into attention. She and the left have a twisted symbiosis going on, about which the rest of the country cares very little.
That being said, you’ve roused me to look into her site more often. I’m usually too sober, but will try to correct that. Thanks for writing.
Yrs,
Fig.

[NOTE: THE FIRST POSTS ARE COPIED FROM EMAIL EXCHANGES WITH FIGARO.]

Dear Figaro,
I think I don’t really understand Barack Obama's original quote [in Figaro's July 5 journal: "Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality."]... that may be what the problem is...I can't think of an example that would define what he is trying to say...
MV

Dear MV,
Aristotle said the main topic of deliberative argument is the "advantageous"--what's to the mutual advantage of you and your audience. This separates deliberative argument from "demonstrative" rhetoric, which is about values and tribal concerns. And from "forensic" rhetoric, which assigns blame and punishment.
Obama is doing the same thing. Let's talk about what's to our mutual advantage, not about who's wrong or right. Take the rapid expansion of prisons: if it's a matter of locking up all "bad people," then we should build them until no "bad person" is left outside. That's demonstrative rhetoric. If it's a matter of what's best for the country, then we have to start a realistic discussion of the most practical ways to reduce crime without excessive costs. See the difference?
Yrs,
Figaro

Dear Figaro,
Now here’s a rhetorical move that would challenge anyone. This comes for the Rhetoricians for Peace listserv:
"Anne Coulter's disgusting claims about the 9/11/01 widows is typical neo-con rhetorical strategy--accuse your opponent of doing exactly what you're doing by making the accusation in the first place. It's Coulter who's capitalizing on the tragedy of 9/11/01 by using it to accuse the East Brunswick Witches of being unpatriotic. Cons use the same strategy when the accuse "liberals" of conducting class warfare by opposing tax cuts for rich people. I'm sure there's a term for that rhetorical move, but I don't know it."
Thought you might want to take this up.
Best,
Gerri

There is indeed a term, Gerri, but I made it up. I call it “setting a backfire.” Bush’s aides did it with their behind-the-scenes fostering of the Swiftboating. Watch the Republicans hit the Dems hard this next election on fiscal irresponsibility.
I’ve covered that a bit in past blogs, and do it more extensively in my book. But I’ll follow your suggestion and take it up again. Thanks for writing.
Yrs,
Figaro

[NOTE: THE FIRST POSTS ARE COPIED FROM EMAIL EXCHANGES WITH FIGARO.]

Dear Figaro,
Since discovering your website, I've spent the majority of my free time working on my rhetoric skills. This is a remarkably informative and fun site. That being said, I have a dilemma for which I humbly ask your help. After reading the section "10 Ways to Use Figures," I can't seem to figure out if I should be focusing on using these figures more often in my speech, or calling people out when they use it, in a way similar to your snappy comebacks. It's a bit of a dumb question, perhaps, but I'm just a novice on the subject. I would greatly appreciate any clarification or other insight you can give me. Thanks!
Kreg

Hello, Kreg,
That's not a dumb question at all. Rhetoric gives you insight into this persuasive world. People who have read my book say that arguments that got them angry or frustrated in the past now fascinate them. So most beginning rhetoricians use their new-found knowledge to observe, not show off. (Well, if you do want to show off--"You just made an anaphora!"--go right ahead.)
Once you find yourself seeing figures under every rhetorical rock, you might feel comfortable enough to use some yourself. The best way to start is to repeat what your interlocutor says while thinking how you might twist it. You could restate in reverse as a chiasmus. Or, if it's a cliché, try taking it literally--"Sure, the early bird gets the worm. It can have it."
Keep me posted on your progress.
Yrs,
Figaro

[NOTE: THE FIRST POSTS ARE COPIED FROM EMAIL EXCHANGES WITH FIGARO.]