Figures of Speech Served Fresh

Loved the book, it seems like you might be totally in to the ultimate game of sophistry and discussion. It's not rhetoric exactly, but it uses enough of the devices.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/index.php

(Go here: http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page for an explanation of the rules)

Be forewarned, it's a major timesink.


And yes, I know I misspelled Vladimir Nabokov's name.

NabakovNabakov


Thanks, N-Man!
Fig.

Figaro,
I love your book. The website and blog look as though they will be helpful too. I'm a college campus minister. I address a group of students every week for a teaching/talk time. It is a speech/sermon not discussion time. Each year we start anew with a whole new batch of freshmen. So for the first few weeks I'm establishing my character a little bit more every week.
Funny, and fun would probably be the best to appear for the health of our ministry and to keep students coming back. Do you have any advice on being funny for someone who isn't very good at it?
thanks, Kevin

Dear Kevin,
Urbane humor is usually your best bet, in part because you can prepare it in advance. (See page 94 of my book.) Urbanity plays on words ("Would John Wayne?" "No, he would wax."), and it relies on a somewhat sophisticated audience. Which, in your case, could be a problem.
Students often respond to urbanity with a rousing "Huh?" Humor is especially dangerous when an older person addresses a younger audience, no matter how funny you are. Your best bet, ministerially speaking, might be sympathetic sincerity. Practice decorum by expressing utter delight in your audience. If that doesn't work, it's still not your fault. An adolescent crowd may be beyond delight.
Ecclesiastically yours,
Fig.

Hello Figaro,

On sunday June 31 there was a Diana concert in London in Wembley stadium. Artists greeted their audience with the words: Hello Wembley!
Figaro, what figure did they use?

Yours,
Arie Vrolijk


It's a SYNECDOCHE (sin-EC-do-kee). The figure swaps a part for a whole. ("White House" for the presidency.) Did you attend, Arie? Were there many, many candles in the wind?
Fig.

I've been reading your bloggy-thing for a while, and it's really interesting. I noticed this week's Tom Tomorrow comic has a smorgasboard of rhetoric figures. "Standard Conservative Responses to Health Care Reform". http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW07-04-07colorlowres.jpg


Thank you for the kind words, O Prophet Thing. The Tom Tomorrow strip is great. In pointing out some first-rate logical fallacies, ol' T.T. commits one of his own: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, reducing an argument to absurdity. Which, in politics' reductive case, is like taking candy from an unborn child.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

What is the figure of speech for a word that is found only once in the Bible? It is something like, h-y-p-o-l-o-g-o-m-a-t-o-n. I'm not sure of the spelling or how to pronounce it. I would appreciate any other information you can give me on this word. Thank you.

Signed,
Pam Johnson

Dear Pam,

I haven't the vaguest. (That's a figure called APORIA!) But I'll try to find it somewhere.

Fig.

Please comment on this illogical quote from Nancy Pelosi today: "By vetoing a bill that expands stem cell research," she wrote, "the president will say 'no' to the more than 70% of Americans who support it 'no' to saving lives 'no' to hope."


Dear Mr. Stone,

Let's get the exact quote from her website: "In vetoing this legislation, the President would be saying ‘No’ to 72 percent of the American people. He would be saying ‘No’ to so many families across America who are hoping and praying this legislation becomes public policy. He would be saying ‘No’ to hope."

Gotta run to an appointment, but I'll deal with this clumsy (though not entirely illogical) piece of jury-rigged rhetoric in a bit. Stay tuned.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,
http://www.figarospeech.com/10-ways-to-use-figures/
#4: "coups de gras," really?

Dear Marek,
But of course--the old lawnmowing analogy. Figaro's French is vraymont execrable.
Fig.

Dear Figaro - Thank you for introducing me to the field of rhetoric. I am wondering if you have plans to write a "Thank You For Arguing - For Children" or if you could suggest a book that is geared more for young teens.

Also, your reference in Chapter 23 to the game "Snakes and Ladders" - is that a figure of speech or a Freudian slip? Thanks-

Carl

Well, Carl, I've thought of doing a Thank You for Arguing for Kids, but my publisher isn't that interested. Maybe I should do an online guide, hmm?

As for Snakes & Ladders, I'm certainly NOT slipping Freudianly. (I'm probably just dating myself.) The game, originally called Moksha-Patamu, was created in India as a way of teaching good vs. evil. Many Americans know it as "Chutes and Ladders," because snakes are scary. And, except for the occasional terrorist, we don't have evil here in America.

Fig.

I have been an avid reader of your blog for quite some time and I have been absorbing your book with a great deal of joy. As I read your book, I am troubled by one thing that seems to keep jumping out at me. I'm wondering if you would care to comment.

I'm a student of philosophy and I have been researching conspiracy theories for a while now; mostly the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. As such I am consistently confronted with irrational arguments, logical fallacies, and poor critical thinking- but on the same token, conspiracists seem to be quite adept at using rhetoric to convince people of their position. Being a rational, sane person myself, I find it difficult to challenge these positions- it seems as if logic is out the window... that the arguments are based purely on logical fallacies, etc- what I would consider to be the antithesis of reason.

I know you address when logos is appropriate in your book- but is it possible that in order to be persuasive, you have to abandon reason? What I think I'm trying to get at is that conspiracy theories are persuasive because they abandon reason- because they appeal to emotion, etc. Your book is definitely helping me understand this- but this has been sort of a rude awakening for me. Any thoughts on that?

Ryan


Dear Ryan,

Instead of looking at conspiracy theories as a matter of logic vs. emotion, consider Aristotle's third appeal: character. People who subscribe to these lame theories belong to a group Ethos. They're among the select few who can spot the enemy among us!

From the rhetorical standpoint, a conspiracy theory is a paranoid cousin to religious faith. What makes someone faithful? Belief and values. A faithful person worships a god or set of gods, regardless of logic or evidence that they exists. In conspiracists' case, the theory is the god.

A religion usually proscribes a set of ethical values to determine what's right or wrong, and who belongs among the faithful. Conspiracy theorists work the same way: they foster a set of beliefs in a secret group of "bad people."

In arguing against a conspiracy theorist, don't get bogged down by the "facts." The conspiracist will have far, far more facts than you, however bizarre and strangely connected they may be. Instead, focus on the characters involved, and their motives or lack of them. And use character attacks to make your audience feel ashamed to belong to a set of dupes.

Finally, don't try to talk a conspiracist out of his theory. That's like talking a Christian out of Christ. It's inarguable.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,
I've ordered your book for my AP English class this fall. I don't suppose you could find your way to Little Rock to speak to my students...or could you?
With great hope,
Mary

Dear Mary,
I'd love to speak to your Little Rock class! Just not in person (Figaro hates having things thrown at him). I've been holding speakerphone calls with English and rhetoric classes, and they've been a blast. To set one up, just email figaro@wildblue.net.
Fig.

Dear Figaro,
On your web site you note that "Up until modern times, rhetoricians believed that figures had a psychotropic effect on the brain, imprinting images and emotions that made people more susceptible to persuasion." Can you tell me a source (or sources) for this observation? Ideally, one that contextiualizes it within a broader history of Western rhetroic. Thanks!
Laura

Dear Laura,
You will find references to figures' "pathetic" effects in most works about figures, up until the 20th century. Start with Gorgias (I like to call him "Gorgeous"), whose mock defense of Helen of Troy ("The Encomium of Helen") asserts that she was "drugged" by oratory--specifically figures. For the rest, see George Kennedy's excellent "A New History of Classical Rhetoric," which contains the best bibliography on figures.
Fig.

Dear Figaro,
Please tell me about your working habits. What comes first? Text or illustration? What is the software you use to make these cool illustrations?
Arie Vrolijk

Dear Arie,
Figaro's working habits consist mostly of computer pinball and staring out the window, He writes first, illustrates second. His program is Jasc Paint Shop Pro, which isn't nearly as good as Photo Shop but much, much cheaper.
Fig.

Hello,
What is the source or origin of the phrase "in that neck of the woods"?

Is "source" or "origin" the best term for this? Is there a better term, perhaps provenance?

Would you please inform me of a web site or two for reading about the background of common English phrases?

Thank you.
Best wishes,
Sue

Dear Sue,

"Neck of the woods" is an IDIOM--a group of words that act like one word with its own meaning. In the days when people were still settling the wilderness, a small, isolated community projecting into the woods was often called a "neck," because it sort of looked like one. So what do you call this highly un-useful knowledge? Etymology is the word that comes to mind.

I've looked at a number of idiom sites, and really don't find any of them all that satisfying. So you'll just have to keep asking Figaro.

Fig.

Hey Figaro,

I'd like to tell you that I am a faithful reader of your emails and your websites, but I kind of find it confusing. There are so many rhetorical devices that do such similar things, it's hard to keep them straight! I guess I'm trying to say that you should reorganize your website (or I should buy your book?), but I'm also asking your help:
I'd like to use your website to help teach some middle school and high school kids how to use the English language to express themselves.
However, I have no idea which of these rhetorical devices are most useful or relevant or important.

So, my question is: what do you think are the absolutely essential rhetorical devices that you list and discuss?

Thanks,

--Dave from Guam


Dear Mr. From Guam,

You ask a great question,and it inspires me to run a series of entries listing the indispensable figures of speech and thought as well as the essential tropes.

My site is something of a bait and switch, though. It offers you terms but really teaches strategy. I dread falling into the habit ridiculed by Samuel Butler: "All the rhetorician's rules/ Teach but the naming of his tools." While you'll find a whole chapter devoted to figures in "Thank You for Arguing," I'm more interested in the USE of those tools. Would they work for your class? Possibly; Random House is pleased with the number of English teachers who are adopting the book.

Meanwhile, though, I'll get cracking on a series of blog entries that tie up a neat little bundle of those unpronounceable terms.

Fig.

Mr. Speech -

Is there a particular word - or a rhetorical philosophy - to describe when one argues a pragmatic point on something that they believe for less pragmatic reasons?

That is, if we're having a debate, and I say that we shouldn't destroy the rainforest, because one of the undiscovered species may hold a cure for cancer.

Now, in reality, my belief that we shouldn't destroy the rainforest is founded more in principle; it simply seems wrong to do so.

Likewise, if one were to argue against the death penalty because "Through appeals and the like, it costs more to house death row prisoners."

By making an argument that appeals to some type of cost/benefit ratio, I may convince those who look only at those things, and don't share my values.

On the other hand, I could be shooting myself in the foot - if the costs of death row prisoners turn out to be cheaper. It also seems like there may be some philisophical or moral dilemmas in using logic in which I don't really believe, simply to further my cause.

Of course, this probably happens more often than not, as I think we mostly form our beliefs first and our justifications second. What do you think?

Thanks,
Adam

Dear Adam,

The device you describe is an important one; Aristotle called it THE ADVANTAGEOUS. When you're talking about a political choice, absolute truth or values only take you so far. that's because a political choice isn't right or wrong, but probably right or probably wrong. You don't know, because you can't predict the future. So you talk about what's to one's advantage rather than to universal Truths.

Whose advantage? The audience's, not yours. To persuade an audience, you
have to use their beliefs and values, not your own. Does this lead to hypocrisy? I devoutly hope so. In Greek, a hypocrite was someone who spoke "before the decision" (Hypo-Krisis). In other words, an orator who used his tricks in the cause of consensus.

For more about deliberative argument, the Advantageous, see page 27 of my book. (Amazing how I managed to work in another plug, no?)

Fig.

Thanks! It seems that it's an accepted - and encouraged - rhetorical approach, which I suppose isn't that shocking. Still, there seems to be something disquieting about it. If a vegetarian is trying to convince me not to eat meat because of the (admittedly, and disturbingly) horrendous conditions that livestock face - why don't they eat Kobe beef? The argument from advantage, I think, sometimes sells one's principles short.

Also, thanks for pointing me towards the etymology of hypocrite - it's more interesting than I initially thought. My initial supposition - "insufficiently critical" - doesn't explain the word as well as http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hypocrisy

Adam

Dear Adam,

The definition you link to doesn't reflect the rich meaning of HYPOCRISY. Even the Oxford English Dictionary fails to give the proper rhetorical slant to this wonderful word. The KRISIS is the audience's moment of decision. The HYPOCRITE leads the audience to that decision, through the persuasive art. The Greek version of hypocrisy also referred to actors on a stage, only because, like the orator, the actor performs a role before an audience. Is there pretense involved? Yes, indeed. The little tricks we play on each other form the glue of civilization.

As for selling your principles short, as your audience, I want to know whether you care about MY principles--or appear to. Persuasion is not self-expression; it's expression of the audience's beliefs and desires. In other words, it's hypocrisy.

Fig.

Dear Fig.,
What does "turn turkey" mean, and what are its origins?
Meg

Dear Meg,

To turn turkey is to switch sides. This IDIOM almost certainly comes from the phrase "to turn Turk." Back in the 16th and early 17th centuries, "Turk" was a common English name for a Moslem. A Christian who converted to Islam "turned Turk." Shakespeare's Hamlet worries that his fortunes might "turn Turk with me."

Figaro has sometimes heard "turn Turkey" in the context of retreating in a cowardly fashion. As I write, I look out onto a meadow with a flock of wild turkeys. I can tell when someone is approaching my writing cabin, because the turkeys will suddenly turn and hightail it out of there.

Rarely, Figaro has heard the expression to mean abandoning something suddenly. So, just to throw a stick in the etymological spokes, consider this: old-time loggers called the bag that carried their gear a "turkey." So to pack your bags and leave without notice might be described as "turning turkey." But Figaro is speculating like crazy at this point.

The White House would say that having the troops pack their bags and leave Iraq, America would be turning turkey. But what if one stayed and converted to Islam? Would that be a turkey done to a turn?

Figaro is getting dizzy.

Yrs,
Fig.

Dear Figaro,
During one of the great comic scenes in Hamlet between the title character and Polonius, the old fart says, "My lord, I have news to tell you," and Hamlet replies with the same words: "My lord, I have news to tell you." Obviously, the words are meant to be inflected differently for comic effect. What is the literary device being used? Is it epimone? Conduplicatio? Just plain old anaphora? I'm stumped and can't sleep until I find the proper term. Can you help? Thank a lot for your attention.BCW

Dear Brian,

Can I help? Of course I can help. The figures you mention all have to do with repetition of one's own words, while Hamlet mimics Polonius. The figure in question, therefore, is MIMESIS, the figure of mimicry, in which the orator mimes the words and gestures of his victim.

Mimesis was more than a figure of abuse, though. It was also an ancient school exercise. The student would channel a particular historical character, flinging bons mots like Cicero or trumpeting like Demosthenes. Wouldn't it be great if kids did that sort of thing today, memorizing Reagan's moving Challenger speech or Colbert's send-up of Bush at the White House Correspondents' dinner?

That would be sending up a send-up. Weird.

Fig.

Dear fig,
Kindly explain this statement in very simple terms."The fool folds his hands together, and eats his own flesh".

Thanks
Vichy


Dear Vich,

Ah, Ecclesiastes 4:5. Figaro loves Ecclesiastes best of all, not least because the Hebrew for Ecclesiastes, Qohelet, is best translated as "Orator." It's the most openly rhetorical of all the sacred books.

The fool you refer to is a man who shuns work ("folds his hands") and ends up starving ("eats his own flesh"). This is a wonderful METAPHOR, and a very subtle form of METONOMY. (Sorry, this service doesn't allow linking. Use the Search button on the right.)

The New International Bible, with its usual ham-handed translating, swaps the flesh-eating for "ruins himself." Figaro vastly prefers cannibalistic figures.

Fig.

Dear Figaro, Pooki and Jethro are still on my mind. Suppose that Cousin Pooki and Uncle Jethro are fictitious characters, fabricated by Barak Osama.
Could I still use the term you mentioned, Antonomasia or must I swap Antonomasia for Personification because these two characters are anthropomorphizations of a certain lifestyle?
Arie Vrolijk

Dear Arie,
You mean Pookie isn't a real guy??? And that Obama is LYING??? And all along we thought Barack was Honest Abe, reincarnated. But take heart: the ANTONOMASIA works the same, whether it's a fictional character (Pollyanna) or live one (Paris Hilton).
Fig.

Dear Figaro,
In a sermon at Brown Chapel in Selma, Ala., Barack Obama declared: "If Cousin Pookie would vote, if Uncle Jethro would get off the couch and stop watching SportsCenter and go register some folks and go to the polls, we might have a different kind of politics." What technique is used by Obama? How would you describe Pookie and Jethro? Do you share characteristics with Uncle Jethro?
Arie Vrolijk

Dear Arie,

Pookie and Jethro share the common fate of being forms of ANTONOMASIA (from the Greek, meaning "naming"). The figure swaps a description for a name or a name for something that describes a thing or phenomenon. Our two couch taters stand, at least in Senator Obama's mind, for non-voters. These also betray a latent snobbery in this hot young presential candidate. Watch it, Barack.

Figaro does not get television in his gridless neck of the woods. And he hates watching other people play. It makes him jealous.

Figaro