Ask Figaro
Got a question about rhetoric, figures, Figaro, Figaro's book,the nature of the universe, or just want to lavish praise?
Write in the form at the bottom of this page.
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
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
July 23, 2006 |
Figaro
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.]
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.]
July 22, 2006 |
Figaro
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.]
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.]
July 22, 2006 |
Figaro
Figaro
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.]