Response to Eckhouse Introduction and Chapter 1 David Owens-Hill

The basic notion underlying classical rhetoric is that any act of verbal communication between human beings comprises four components: (1) a speaker or writer, (2) listeners or readers, (3) a message or text, and (4) a reality or universe that the message or text is talking about. All four of those components play a part in business or professional communications; but of those four, the one that gets primary consideration is audience that is, the listeners or readers -Edward P. J. Corbett

When writing a reflection for class based on reading, I follow a pretty simple format for choosing on which (of the undoubtedly many) topics in the reading I will respond. I use a pen to mark the things in the book that I find relevant and useful, and the items that are fervently circled, underlined, or starred get more attention in the reflection than the items that are not. Its basic prioritization; nothing fancy. In the introduction of the Eckhouse text, I circledtwicethe passage above in which Eckhouse cited Corbetts model of basic classical rhetoric. For a great long time I have known the gist of rhetoric, but it was not until I read the above passage that I understood the basic formula for determining the rhetorical validity of a communicative act. I may put this passage on my fridge, where I sometimes stick index cards with passages that I come across that make me feel like I can relive an aha! moment.

Chapter one had fewer violent circles and underlines, but no fewer aha! moments. Its a little known fact that, before going to art school and embarking on a career focusing on brand-management, I briefly went to architecture school to try my hand at that profession. It was a difficult program, and I was successful, but I didnt buy the hype that the profession professed. I understand, after reading the case study presented in Chapter one, that I was rebelling against the non-rhetorical nature of the profession and slipped naturally into a profession that is based entirely in rhetoric. I was happy to learn from the case study, which Eckhouse correctly identified as applicable to any industry or profession, that my role as a brand-manager is rhetorical and that the strategies I implement, many of which I was never formally taught, were centered on emphasizing the client in communication and maintaining the relationship between communicator and audience. For example, in a previous role at a nonprofit organization, part of my responsibilities included internal communication strategy for a loosely affiliated audience closely comparable to a transient staff. Because this audience was only loosely tied to our organization, I worked to refine our strategyand our expected outcomesas related to this group. Instead of expecting immediate buy in, I worked with this group to ensure a comprehensive understanding of our institutional philosophy and buy-in on our messaging. If I sensed resistance, I worked with the audience to explain our position, or looked for ways to reflexively change the message, either in substance or in mechanism, to accommodate the needs of the audience. Point (4) in Corbetts quotes that a reality or universe that a message is talking about is necessary in classic rhetorical study. I want this to be my take-away from this reading. In order to achieve classical rhetorical study, I believe that you have to

acknowledge the moment-in-time nature of complete communicative acts. Maybe that will join the quote in its entirety on the index card on my fridge.

Response to Eckhouse Chapters 4, 5, & 6 David Owens-Hill

Though chapters 4, 5, and 6 covered a range of important topicsespecially as we explored ethics and fallacies in chapter 6I think it safe to say the most important takeaway from these chapters is the presentation of an argument visually in a proofline, which translates into a model for argumentative writing. Being a professional message-crafter I work with the notion of presenting arguments each day, but much of what I did relied on what felt right. Now, after reading about Toulmins proofline and working on one for class I understand the notion of presenting arguments in a specific way to ensure effectiveness. My career roles have always been in shaping visual messages, so the notion of translating a proofline to a written memo is completely foreign; the notion of translating a proofline to a content map, however, feels very natural. I would call this an aha moment in my understanding of argumentative communication. The rules of argumentative writing as outlined in our reading tend to be fairly rigid. I learned (probably because I went to art school and not communication school) that the key to crafting a message was in a sound reasoning structure. We would often draft mind-mapsthough that term was not yet coined, Im struggling to remember what we called themwith our primary mission in a circle on the middle of a whiteboard or a huge sheet of paper. This mission would ideally have a supporting creative brief from which you could pull salient details about the direction of travel upon which you were about to creatively embark. If the clients brief indicated a traditional approach, you

would begin to outline ways to make the argument visually using reserved colors and classical type treatments. You may tape or pin-up samples from inspiration piles or sketches that you quickly hammered out with pen and paper (no computers!) Some students and professionals would pull Pantone chips to indicate color choices, occasionally FPO images would be used to set tone. From the center point, you would begin to work outward until you had defined the various components of a design campaign. Ultimately this mind-map (what the heck were they called back then?!) would be transferred to a mockup board and covered with trace so that it could be presented to the client, a professor, or a review team. I was often in the habit of using a double layer of tracethe one that laid directly on top of my proposal would have notes that I made anticipating questions from the reviewer and the top layer was reserved for their notes. This processwhich at the time felt like a gigantic waste of timeforced me to understand the importance of looking at the solution to a problem as the culminating result of the answers to hundreds of design-questions. The extra layer of trace allowed me to plan for rebuttals. Reflectively, I wish I had appreciated more the value of so thoroughly understanding a project before beginning it. I do understand now the parallels between that level of preparedness and the measure of preparedness offered by a proofline. Chapters 4 and 5 were all about the prooflineand it is no-doubt important and usefulbut the list of fallacies in chapters 6 may be the most useful listing of information in the book. Though knowing the formal names of the types of fallacies is an interesting party trick, the real value is in recognizing them in the wild. I feel certain that this list is a collection of information that I will turn to again when I struggle to figure out why

something doesnt feel right which is how I traditionally uncovered ethics violations in life and in academia. Im pleased that Im now armed with a set of fallacies upon which I can build diagnostic criteria and further explore.

Response to Eckhouse Chapters 7 David Owens-Hill

I will confess that I struggled with chapter 7. Maybe I was hungry, maybe the wind was blowing the wrong way, but for whatever reason I just wasnt getting ethos. I looked up the definition (the moral element in dramatic literature or rhetoric that determines a characters action rather than his or her thought or emotion) and thought hard about a contemporary counterpart, but nothing clicked. Until I read, of all things, the Related Reading footnotes at the end of the chapter. The author suggests we read The Harper & Row Rhetoric: Writing as Thinking/Thinking as Writing, and explains that this work contains a discussion of a writers persona. Boom; there was the word I needed to bring it all home. In my academic studies and in my professional roles, I have consistently gravitated towards experiential storytelling. Ive been drawn to roles marketing organizations that represent not a product, not exactly a service, but a lifestyle. In the nonprofit sector I worked to explain the value of arts in our community. In the higher education sector I encourage external audiences to understand the importance of a liberal arts education in a world that seems counter to the very notion. Carl Jung defined persona as a complicated system of relations between individual consciousness and society, fittingly enough a kind of mask, designed on the one had to make an impression upon others, and on the other to conceal the true nature of the individual (1928, p. 305). I like to believe that Jungs definition casts the least positive light possible on the term, and think that in reality it lives in a space more akin to

the performers on Habermas stage. Its what we choose to show; where we choose to live. Having worked in marketing, I understand the importance of crafting a message an activity that is bandied about pretty fast-and-loosewith little understanding of the realities of the necessity of revision and channel selection. I was pleased to see the section in the chapter that explains the lengths that John Gage spent on crafting one short sentence on George Louis Leclerc. Though the time necessary to perform this analysis on each message presented in the professional world would is a luxury afforded to few, it is nevertheless an important skill to understand and master. I like to think of this ability to review and edit on the fly in much the same way that I think of our evolving skill in reflecting on the fly. Its less than ideal, but necessary in our modern business world. Im struck by something else as I think back over the chapter the ability to successfully channel ethos into your rational argument seems naturalat least to some. There are people in this world who so seamlessly integrate their persona and their argument that youd never know they were employing this tent-post of rhetoric. I wonder if these people are truly effective communicators or if they are blessed with the innate ability to understand efficacy in a way that cant be taught. I dont have an answer for that, but think its an interesting question. Something to ponder for the next reflection.

Reflection on Production Programs for Crafting the Message David Owens-Hill Full disclosure: I write this reflection in part while thinking about Dr. Neales

presentation on using GarageBand to create podcast media presentations. I have never used audio to present an argument. Perhaps this stems from a

lifelong dislike of my own voice or a perceived inability to hear fine detail. I dont actually think either of those things affect my ability to present a message via audio, but I cant think of other reasons that I dont do it. I have used print media and motion graphics (both web, intereactive kiosk-style, and video) but never audio. Heres the thingI dont know that I want to. Audio is a powerful medium. All one has to do is tune to This American Life

on NPR to understand the impact of carefully considered audio and soundtrack. But I find this mode of storytelling best left to a particular type of professional in the craft. There are people who can artfully articulate a message in very few words and with very few additional elements, and then there are people like me who can articulate a message, but rely on a collection of presentation materials to accomplish this goal. Dont misunderstandI believe that less is more, but I also belive that I can not artfully tell a story in an audio-only format. When I try, I find my writing to be flat and monosyllabic. I dont think in words, I think in pictures. Because of this, audio just isnt in my wheelhouse.

I dont think this is a personal or professional limitation. I think its very

useful to understand ones strengths, and I feel mine lie in visual storytelling. I look forward to presenting visual arguments in class using a variety of media to present a persuasive message.

Reflection on Writing for the Ear David Owens-Hill

I found the list of 13 tips for writing for the ear incredibly helpful. I decided to reflect and write about why this list of simple to-do items is particularly helpful for someone with my background. I have said in reflection after reflection that I am a print-person and have no background in spoken word or audio presentation, and I will say it one more time: I work in print. We are fundamentally different creatures than those people who work in audio. We wear headphones, but its usually so we can blast some form of indie, quasi-Hipster, cooler-than-you music that you probably havent heard of without disrupting our neighbors. Coincidentally, this environment of hyper-competitive music selection is important to our work as it often guides the cadence of our thought and thus the tone of our design. I wrote down the list of 13 items (copied at the end of this reflection so I can reference it later) and left it laying around the house for a couple of days. My roommate, Marshall, picked up the list and one point and started chuckling. I had to know what he was laughing about, and he said it was numbers 3, 5, and 7: keep sentences short, use short words, and avoid parenthetical statements. I still didnt understand the laughing, so he explained that he often thinks of my writing being read in the voice of an 18th century English viceroy; lofty, highfalootin, unnecessarily verboseuhwordy. He said that I was incapable of writing in the way the list of items on the kitchen counter told me I should.

I dont necessarily agree with Marshall, but I cede his point. I learned to tell a story with words. A print-persons work is less temporal than an audio-persons work. When I have a piece produced, the cost of doing business ensures that it will stay in the world for a little while. An audio persons work is gone literally at the speed of sound. They have one shot to make their piece work. As a communication grad student that has no experience as a communication undergrad, there are times when a professor will mention something that I should know that I simply dont. In the piece on writing for the ear, you mentioned signposting as a step in public-speaking. Though I should take public speaking classes to conquer a few of doing it, I havent, so this phrase was foreign to me. I looked it up, and think that youre referring to this definition: Signpost: a very brief statement that indicates where a speaker is in the speech or that focuses attention on key ideas. Im amazed at the simplicity of this notion, and that I havent heard of it earlier. Its a key characteristic of effective copywriting (most closely related to the idea of headers in an academic paper.) The idea that there are glossaries out there that can contextualize my knowledge of copywriting/advertising in the world of greater communication to add to my cache is something that I plan to explore further. I characterize this as a mini-aha! moment.

Things to remember when writing for the ear: 1. Use conventional language 2. Use active verbs 3. Keep sentences short 4. Prefer the present tense 5. Use short words 6. Use the personal & intimate forms you and I 7. Avoid parenthetical statements 8. Paraphrase more, quote less 9. Round-off and verbalize statistics 10. Spell out numbers 11. Spell out abbreviations 12. Make your structure clear 13. Polish the introduction and conclusion