I’d like to close out Phase 1 of my investigation with a little breakdown (not mine, I already did that this year!) of language, of fiction, of rhetoric… Where do we stand with language, with fiction, with education of language and fiction, in the 21st Century?

Language is powerful. From arguments, to political speeches, from science textbooks, to novels, language is incredible. The way a historian might describe how the telephone was invented will be mostly, if not all, factual – but the way a novelist might describe how the telephone was invented could be a fantastic story of blind witches needing a way to communicate across a world without drawing attention to their power. I don’t know… My point is, language can be literal, factual, nonfiction… but it can also be lyrical, silly, and beautiful (not that facts aren’t beautiful). As Michael Holquist says in his article about Language and Fiction, “Language has a dual nature: it can be logical and useful and provide valuable information, but it can also be literary and thus unconstrained by facts and logic” (Language of Fiction, Fiction of Language).

If we, as students, as writers, as educators, don’t learn the multi-faceted world of language, how are we to teach it to the next generation? What kinds of novels will hit the shelves in fifteen to twenty years if kids aren’t able to deeply explore the Fiction world alongside of the Nonfiction world? According to the Commore Core State Standards Initiative, between grade 4 and grade 12, the percentage of time spent on fictional and nonfictional texts drop from 50%/50% to 30%Literary/70%Informational. With such a high emphasis on nonfiction/informational texts, it’s like we’re trying to limit the way our students are exposed to language. “Fiction is a category the framers of the ELA standards either ignore or treat as merely a set of techniques with a mysterious abilitiy to enhance the truth”  (Language of Fiction, Fiction of Language).

“We are the teachers of students who in increasing numbers will come to us trained in the shadow of the CCSSI’s restrictrive conception of language” (Language of Fiction, Fiction of Language). 

I honestly never thought I’d put “logic” and “bible” in the same sentence. There’s a first for everything!

Pre-K Pause. This is not a religious (for or against) blog post, so much as a “persuasion techniques in a book in the bible?!” blog post. Get off your high horse, I’m not coming for your religion.

I have not read the bible academically in many moons… if ever… Having said that, yes, I have read the bible. Also yes, it has been years. So bear with me on this one… I no longer even own a bible. So I’m investigating persuasion modes/techniques in fiction. I found an interesting article about the art of persuasion in the book of Ruth! WHAT! My first thought was “I’ve never heard of a book called Ruth.” #Heathen. So in this article, Matthew Michael (wow, two Judeo-Christian names) brings attention to a few literary devices. 

For those of you (*ahem, us*) who don’t know this story, here’s a quick synopsis: The Book of Ruth is about Ruth and Orpah (two women of Moab) who marry the two sons of Elimelech and Naomi (Judeans) who settled in Moab to escape a famine in Judah. All 3 husbands die; Naomi plans to return to her native Bethlehem and urges her daughters-in-law to return to their families. What tickles me about this, is there were many persuasive techniques present in this book of the Bible – from repitition, to rhetorical questions, to emotive language, to metaphors, to oath-swearing – all of these devices being “foundational to the characterization, plot, and the crafting of its narrative space” (Art of Persuasion).

We see the use of logical argument when Naomi tries to convince her two daughters-in-law to “go back, each of you, to your mother’s home.” One of Naomi’s logical arguments is that “staying with Naomi would mean abandoning all hopes of remarring because [Naomi] is too old to bear more sons” (Art of Persuasion).

Bottom line, whoever wrote the book of Ruth clearly used logos – but intentionally or unintentionally is the real question. Did they even know about logos? Was their ability to utilize logos an independently developed concept, completely separate from Aristotle’s appeals?! Did they speak to Aristotle about the appeals?  You know that ice-breaker question of “who, alive or dead, would you invite to dinner”? I think the author of the Book of Ruth might be in my top 10… What are your thoughts?!

I have found logos to be the hardest mode of persuasion to utilize in writing. I think too many people in this world think their own logic and reasoning are sound… and that makes it hard to feel comfortable trying to appeal to logos. Is that just me? Am I totally alone on a canoe in the ocean on this one?

Let’s start with a classic I share a name with… Jane Austen’s Emma.

We all know (or at least should, by now!) that ethos is the appeal to an audience’s value or character – the good, the just, the credibility, the reputation, you get it. If we are susceptible to an ethos persuasion, we might be more likely to relate to a character who is of a social status or wealth that we find attractive or appealing. Ethos, as it relates to rhetoric, is when a speaker (or writer!) must work to understand the values of her audience in order to persuade most effectively (Ethos in Austen’s Emma). I think one of the fascinating parts of the way Emma is written is that “instead of demanding that the reader simply ‘learn this,’ the narrator implies, “Of course you (reader) alread know this (whether the reader knows it or not) because you share in my ethos'” (Ethos in Austen’s Emma). Again, there’s this connection to the audience…

In order to write a book, a story, a poem, a speech, what have you – one of the first steps is to know who your audience is. The universal audience? An audience of one? Yourself? (shout out Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca! IYKYK) 

So, if I understand what you value, what you find reputable, I’ll be able to make you feel whatever I want you to feel… Interesting. You know, I have a friend who is in the midst of writing an incredible book about a world similar to ours but also…immensely dissimilar? The world he has created is beautiful and magical, without going anywhere near Harry Potter magic. It’s the feeling of magic, more than the doing of magic. Whenever we get a chance to talk deeply about his book (which is not as often as I’d like!) he says his one goal with his book, if nothing else, is to be able to make the reader feel exactly what he wants, when he wants. He wants those feelings to be universal. I’m curious to find out which modes of persuasion he ends up using to accomplish this… But alas, a task for another day!