Isocrates puts his finger on one recurring problem in rhetorical education: the desire for and willingness to resort to hard and fast rules (p. 73). He sez, “oratory is good only if it has the qualities of fitness for the occasion, propriety of style, and originality of treatment.” No firm rules for “good” oratory can ensure that one will achieve these ends. Nevertheless, he advocates formal training, which can make people “more skillful and more resourceful in discovering the possibilities of a subject” (p. 74). In the _Antidosis_, he calls this training a “gymnastic of the mind” (p. 76). Yet even Isocrates sez the rhetoric teacher should “expound the principles of the art with the utmost possible exactness” (p. 74). How can we teach “good” writing without giving rules for good writing? Or, to put this question in another way: Imagine that you agree with Isocrates and his vision for a rhetorical education that imparts skill through a gymnastic of the mind. Imagine that a student asks you how to write a “clear sentence” or a “good introduction.” What would you tell that student?
sorry for posting so late, for some reason my computer wouldn't show the posts until now. But I do agree with Chris that rules (or guidelines) of grammar and spelling should be included in education, but not necessarily enforced. Breaking the rules of grammar, such as in the case of misconjugation of verbs, should be done not out of ignorance of what is technically correct, but instead purposefully based on the audience. Rhetoricians should at least be aware of the rules of grammar, even if they decide not to follow them.
The comments here weren't showing until I posted under the other topic. Strange.
"Breaking the rules of grammar, such as in the case of misconjugation of verbs, should be done not out of ignorance of what is technically correct, but instead purposefully based on the audience."
My sentiments exactly. I have much more respect for a writer who has demonstrated that she knows the rules and is breaking them for effect than for one who clearly neither knows the rules nor has an editor. I think the way I taught worked well - they showed us the rules and made us demonstrate our proficiency, and then let us read authors who bent/broke the same rules, to see how it was done.
Right, we should be taught the rules first, for proficiency. If this requires some sort of drilling exercises to understand the grammar of (in this case) the English language, so be it. As long as there is allowed the opportunity to, for example, read authors who "bent/broke the same rules" for the pupose of creating an effect "based on the audience." Such incorrectness would not be "ignorance," but a true mastery of the language. The only danger, I think, is encountering opposition from those teachers who tell their students that one can't start a sentence with "and" or "but." It detrimentally affects the student into not being able to "play" with language and prevents a true mastery of it. I really loathed that.
In my experience as a taker of writing classes, I have found that one can write a “clear sentence” or a “good introduction” and they can still both be something I would never care to read and are terrible pieces of writing. What I mean is, I haven’t come across any way that “good” writing can be taught. A piece of writing is either good, or it isn’t. Let it be known that I cannot stand any article found in Newsweek or Time because they all follow the same formula (personal anecdote, newfound knowledge, conclusion that ties with the personal anecdote usually some kind of lame figure of speech). They remind me of the beginnings of any crime-drama, e.g. CSI in which at the end of the first scene they pan to a character and he or she says something like “The killer may have counted on no one seeing him *pan* but he didn’t count on us.” But I digress. I think that the path to “good” writing lies in knowing the grammatical structure of a language and then doing lots of reading so that you can recognize what is and is not shite, and then imitate what is not shite. Still, other than grammar there is no way to teach this kind of thing. One either can or cannot do it. Call me an elitist. Please.
In all honesty, it might be a good idea to not give hard and fast rules to elementary school children when they write their papers. They can be incredibly formulaic and very boring to read (I speak from personal experience). Instead of giving them rules, I would give them objectives to accomplish and leave it up to them on how they want to accomplish say a good introduction. So what should one talk about in the introduction? Well, they need to state their main point of the paper and what the direction of the paper will be. Essentially, the introduction gives the paper focus and draws the reader in. Then it would be up to the students to use a narrative, or the ever reliable quote to start their introduction and then move on to the main idea. Similarly, for a clear sentence I would ask them to try to explain each sentence to their classmates and talk about exactly what that sentence is trying to say. That exercise might help them realize that the sentences are filled with useless vocab words and confusing word orders.
Well, I think some rules should be enforced. Spelling and grammar are important in creating well-formed sentences (syntactically at least). Otherwise, leaving the "rules" as more lenient guidelines as far as learning goes doesn't seem like a wholly bad idea. I think if you can't teach them what a good sentence is, at least you can teach them what a good sentence is not and let them devise the rest for themselves.
A clear sentence is one that communicates its ideas effectively and concisely. "I ate Cheerios for breakfast," I think, gets across the idea without wasting space. You can't teach that specifically though, or like Saba said, we'd get students writing sentences that all look the same. But since "good writing" is only what everyone agrees it to be, a good teacher is one who is able to impart knowledge on the kind of speaking we all agreed on as being good. The good teacher may not actually give the students hard and fast rules (not including spelling or grammar), but instead allows them to speak themselves, and merely guides their words with his/her experience.
He sez, “oratory is good only if it has the qualities of fitness for the occasion, propriety of style, and originality of treatment.”
Propriety of style is different for every occasion. We dress a certain way for church, work, and vacation. It is not any different for oratory. Each occasion requires a different type of language. For an example, slang and casual language is appropriate to convey emotion in a song while formal language is necessary for a political speech. As for originality, it is hard to attain by following the same rules repetitively.
The desire for and willingness to resort to hard and fast rules is not a reoccurring problem in only rhetorical education. Although rules are necessary for to function, they are merely guidelines. Some rules are more “hard and fast” than others. Drinking and driving for example, is not tolerated under any circumstances. On the other hand, speeding is a rule that is broken every day. Even when you are unfortunate enough to be pulled over, warnings are sometimes given.
In the case of a “clear sentence” or a “good introduction”, we can only use rules as a guide to satisfy the needs of “good” oratory. In elementary school, there were strict rules for an introduction. In an ideal paper, a good introduction must contain a thesis sentence and an overview of the three components of the paper. However, those rules were only appropriate for the prompts we received in elementary. As we progress through school, we graduate onto more complex forms of literature. We still retain the basic rules for good writing which we learned in grade school.
As we encounter different occasions, develop our writing style, and try to approach the ancient discipline of rhetoric with originality, we stray from those rules. In a dissertation for an example, there are not merely three main points to be mentioned in the paper. A spider web may still be helpful to begin drafting ideas, but it will be far more complex.
In rhetoric, rules are necessary to point writers in the direction of “good oratory” but cannot lead them there. I would tell the student that the rules of good oratory are important to keep in mind but it is up to the student to develop their own writing style in order to encompass the qualities of fitness for the occasion, propriety of style, and originality of treatment in every “good introduction” and “clear sentence”.
Above everything else, I would attempt to teach any student that writing is, first and foremost, a creative process. This is what Isocrates is stressing when he mentions "gymnastics of the mind;" the student hones his aptitude for learning with each exercise. Isocrates has a hierarchy for good oratory/writing (in descending level of importance): natural ability, practical experience, and then formal training. By mastering the lower levels, the student is better prepared to continue on to the next level of "more serious studies." So the formal training serves a noble purpose in the formative stage of the pupil; it is a foundation. Isocrates' problem with formal training is when it is pursued to the point that it hinders the creative process that natural talent provides, but which can also be developed with effort. In telling a student to write a "clear sentence" or a "good introduction," I would expect to see an adherence to the formalities of the language, but also, and even more importantly, evidence of curiosity and originality of thought. That is just as important an indicator of "good" as is proper application of the rules learned during formal training.