Watch your language when you write

angrymobSeveral years ago I was invited to address a group of Christian leaders in Canada, about church writing groups and the need for Christians to write in a compelling manner in whatever marketplace writers may find themselves. My aim was to teach about worldview and about including God’s word in reaching a secular audience. (Before you read further, in my defense I will say that I had previously given this same talk to several different Christian audiences.)

I began to make a point about how your harsh words and insensitive writing will polarize an audience before even reaching your main point. Using a letter to the editor I had found, I began reading it aloud so they could hear a harsh, insensitive writer spouting venom about homosexuals. My second step was to dig into the letter together with my audience so that we could find a more appropriate way to make a point.

I’ll admit to the irony of what happened next.

Before I could finish reading the offensive letter out loud, a quarter of my audience had stood, turned their backs, and exited the room.

What could I have done differently? I warned them, up front, that this would be something we could–we should–all learn to do better. Perhaps I should have brought up my main points earlier on, so they could see that I myself intended no insult. Before planning my talk, I should have asked some questions of the conference organizers, in the hope of learning more about the attendees.

It has always been my policy to remember first what Paul instructed to his readers–and what I was going to teach my audience–to do:  “Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person” (NASB Colossians 4:5-6). In this case, my message failed to reach many people in my audience because I didn’t understand how to “respond to each person.” 

Consider, though, that you can’t always anticipate how each audience member will react. Better to hold on to the truth than to water down your message.

Think about who your audience is: who reads your discourse or sits in your audience? Think about them and write so that they can understand.

This means you need to evaluate–or maybe anticipate–your audience before you write. Now, if you are a Rhetoric student, your audience is not so vast:

  • Your teacher
  • Your parents, who will proofread
  • Your classmates

Or maybe you have a larger audience:

  • Readers of your blog or other social media
  • Readers of your letter to an editor
  • Your youth group
  • Classmates, teachers, administrators, and parents at your school–perhaps in a graduation assembly or thesis defense

Perhaps you have a passionate response to something in the news, or you want to join a demonstration and make your voice heard. Who will be that audience?

Most importantly, you want to craft a speech or discourse in the best light so that your audience will be moved to take action. And alongside of that, you must keep in mind WHO your audience is, and be sure to write so that they understand what you’ve said.

In the situation above, what could I have done differently? Before I read aloud that offensive letter to the editor, I DID tell them what they were going to hear and that I wanted to work with them on less strident language. What can I conclude from their hasty departure? Either they didn’t hear my introduction, or they just couldn’t stomach what I was reading out loud. It’s hard to know now. Something about the subject caused them to shut down and walk off.

This is bound to happen sometimes. If we’re speaking the truth in love, at times it won’t matter that you have the best intentions. Truth offends. Often, though, we need to:

  1. Observe who we are trying to reach,
  2. Review what we’re going to say, and
  3. Commit our words and our presentation to the Lord, asking him for wisdom.

In his instructions to the faithful in Colossae, Paul writes a beautiful passage on how to speak with others both inside and outside of the church:

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (ESV Colossians 3:12-17, emphasis added)
Be that salt and light to your audience, whoever they are. Speak the truth in love. Have compassion for the lost. Put on love.
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Apologetics, Biblical Worldview, Rhetoric, Uncategorized, Writing

The Style of Good Rhetoric

Aristotle classified five “canons” of Rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Our own course of Biblical Worldview Rhetoric is also divided in the same manner.

Style arrives midway through our course with good reason. Invention–the method of discovering what to write about and how to prove our point, and Arrangement–deciding how to argue and in what order it will happen, provide us with a strong foundation. We might call it the “bones” of an argument.

Once we have 1) arrived at our arguments and 2) arranged them effectively, then we must 3) skillfully and artfully weave our words together in a pleasing, clear, compelling manner. Consider this the clothing that covers the flesh and bones of your argument.

Skillful writing:

  • Uses proper grammar.
  • Chooses the right word for the right meaning. Vague writing will inevitably confuse the audience.
  • Finds compelling ways to paint a word picture in the mind of the audience. One homeschool writing curriculum calls it “dressing up” your writing.
  • Is not redundant: it does not repeat itself retelling in a repetitious manner. (Got it?)

Aristotle uses a bit of sarcasm when discussing what seems to be common sense: if you want to persuade, do not be ambiguous “unless, indeed, you definitely desire to be ambiguous, as those do who have nothing to say but are pretending to mean something” (Rhetoric Book 3). Your audience might be momentarily charmed by clever words, but they can detect specious reasoning and a thin façade of argumentation.

Think about your favorite writers. Why do you love to read what they write? They probably weave together a great story that keeps you engaged, make characters come to life, hold you in suspense, make you love the protagonist and hate his enemy. I agree with all of that, and I’ll add another quality, because I love words: the best authors paint an engaging word picture that might make me pause and admire how that was done.

I just finished reading another book in Alan Bradley’s Flavia de Luce series, The Grave’s a Fine and Private Place. Seriously, go pick up the first book, Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie,  and tell me what you think. Bradley goes into the mind of a genius 11-year-old girl, Flavia (rhymes with “gravy-a”, and she insists that you pronounce it correctly), in post-World War 2 Britain. She is funny, terribly clever, dreams of concocting poisons in the chemistry lab on her estate, and solves crimes.

Here are some brilliant uses of the language that continue to endear Flavia to me:

  • “I could see at a glance that sunlight was not welcome here.” Bradley could have said simply, “This was a gloomy room.” No, he wanted to use this room to create a setting for his reader.
  • “I raised an eyebrow at Dogger, who had told me that the word [‘momentarily’] meant ‘briefly’ rather than ‘soon,’ and was best avoided if one didn’t want to be mistaken for an American. But Dogger was wearing his unreadable poker face, and I was left to feel superior all by myself.” Flavia is smart and knows it. And she’s a bit disdainful about Americans. But notice how Bradley’s words don’t insult Americans outright; they are a soft nudge, tongue-in-cheek. Besides, Bradley himself is Canadian, so he doesn’t get it right every time either.
  • “When I woke up, the shadows of late afternoon had subtly rearranged my room.” Could Bradley have just said “When I awoke, I noticed that the sun was going down”? Sure, but his choice is much more evocative.
  • “The conversation was becoming like one of those absurd French dramas in which the characters stand about swapping nonsense dialogue while the audience pretend they know what’s going on.” I am certain Bradley meant Waiting for Godot. The icy, vague shadow of a nightmare rises up, along with memories of a sadistic professor who tried to convince us that it was a brilliant work of art. Bradley transported me back to a decade of frustrated reading (that was probably actually only a week long, but I can never get that time back), trying to discern any deep meaning in that play. It’s not worth your time, folks.

The third Canon of Rhetoric, Style, puts the icing on the cake, the jewels on the crown, the gold filigree on the tapestry… You see what I mean. And the more you pay attention to excellent writing, the more ways you will arrive at beautiful, compelling Style to prove your point and convince your audience.

Leave a comment

Filed under Education, Grammar, Literature, Rhetoric, Uncategorized

Rhetoric: Not as Negative as You Might Think

angry politicianGetting to know a new dental hygienist, she asked about my career. I told her I’ve retired from teaching, among other things, Rhetoric. “Rhetoric?” she paused. “What is that, anyway?” That’s the question I get a lot. I opened my mouth to answer, and couldn’t get the words out for the dental torture devices she shoved in my mouth.

So what is Rhetoric, anyway? Isn’t it just a lot of negative political double-talk? I get a lot of puzzled looks from people who have only heard Rhetoric referred to in a negative light–especially in our politically-charged atmosphere today.

Way back when Aristotle (384-322 BC) was writing and postulating on the nature of the world, he observed how people tried to persuade one another. He didn’t invent the art of persuasion; he observed and organized the concept and gave it a name: Rhetoric.

Aristotle’s lifelong pursuit seems to have been organizing, categorizing, labeling,  commenting upon, and teaching different aspects of the world as he knew it.  Scholars assembled his body of works, known as the Corpus Aristotelicum. Most scholars today dispute the inclusion of quite a few lesser works and argue that what is contained in the Corpus may actually be written in the style of Aristotle by students in his schools. Much of the Corpus, though, is indisputably his, and is classified in five categories: Logic; Metaphysics; Physics; Ethics and Politics; and Rhetoric and Poetics.

It doesn’t take long to realize that we are all engineered to argue; spend one day with a three-year-old or a middle school student and see what I mean.  Aristotle, far from wanting to encourage a child to argue, instead directs the more mature student “to discern the real and the apparent means of persuasion” (Aristotle, Rhetoric Book 1).

In the classical tradition, the student of Rhetoric will have had an education in Logic, which sets a solid foundation on which to build his persuasive discourse. Aristotle’s thoughts on Logic confirm that fact: Aristotelian logic centers on the syllogism, which is (in very simple terms) an argument composed of two premises and a conclusion.

How do we get from Aristotle’s Logic to the definition of Rhetoric? If we, like him, consider it in terms of a scientific approach, then Rhetoric is the science of persuasion. He breaks down persuasive discourse in order to analyze it.

Similarly, our course of Rhetoric today does break down the component parts of Rhetoric in order to analyze its effectiveness. And the study of it, as detailed in Biblical Worldview Rhetoric (Second Edition coming soon), also explores and imitates the artful side of Rhetoric. We’ll look at the art of persuasion in another post.

But going back to one of our original questions: isn’t Rhetoric just a lot of negativity? It can be, most definitely. Sometimes it accuses, other times it defends, and very often it celebrates or remembers. For every angry, accusatory political discourse, I can show you several poignant, uplifting, inspirational ones. Rhetoric doesn’t have to be negative; it must always be persuasive.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Classical Education, Rhetoric, Uncategorized

An Eclectic Stack of Books Read in 2017

My library gives evidence to the type of reader I have become: eclectic. I have always thought (rather snobbishly) that I only love classic literature (spoken with a decidedly British accent, nose in the air: lit-ra-toor). The people I love, though, have pushed me toward other books they have loved, and I am much richer for it. So in addition to the beloved classic novels I read and re-read with pleasure, I also enjoy mystery, intrigue, historical fiction, sci-fi, and fantasy novels. I know that when my grown children or husband say “You’ve got to read this,” nine times out of ten I totally agree.

After a very chilly cross-country move to California last January, my mother-in-law, excited to have us live close to her, told me that she and I just had to take a Jane Austen class at a nearby college. The class was offered as part of a program for seniors who want to expand their knowledge. After protesting that it was for seniors (and I am not yet a senior, thank you very much!), I admitted that rereading and talking about my favorite author might, after all, be fun. So off we launched into Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, and Northanger Abbey. Then I just needed to read a few more, so just like greeting an old friend, I also enjoyed Emma and Persuasion as well, listening to them on Audible while unpacking boxes.

Sticking with British novels a while longer, I picked up a book that I had received as a gift: Mr. Churchill’s Secretary by Susan Elia Macneel. This was book one of the Maggie Hope mysteries taking place during World War Two. Light, interesting, and well-written, her story drew me in, so I curled up with the next two:  His Majesty’s Hope and Princess Elizabeth’s Spy. After taking a break from them, I will probably read a couple more.

The adjustment to dry and hot Northern California from the grey, cold, humid Midwest meant I had to study up on gardening (and raising chickens and tending vineyards) in our new environment. That has not been much of a chore! You might find me adding a few more of those to my list just for fun.

My husband and I like to listen to audiobooks when on a long drive, so we listened to John Grisham’s Camino Island and Nelson DeMille’s Plum Island (no, we weren’t on a nautical theme; it was just coincidental). Grisham is always a good read, and he never disappoints. Though DeMille’s book was peppered throughout with pretty bad language, the story was good and captivating. We also read Killing the Rising Sun by Bill O’Reilly, a fascinating retelling of Japan’s brutal role in World War Two.

My son finished reading Assassin’s Apprentice by Robin Hobb and left it with me. In this fantasy, the main character is a young boy raised as the illegitimate son of a prince. The boy has a couple of skills: the empathic ability to communicate with animals and with people, even perhaps to alter people’s perception in order to change events. It’s an interesting premise, and the book, though slow-moving, was good. I picked up the second novel of that series, Royal Assassin, and was disappointed with the pace. It wasn’t simply slow, like the first book; this one churned around and around so sluggishly,  I just couldn’t stay with it (Have you ever watched cement dry? That slowly). I have a feeling that it might have ended up a good novel, but I didn’t have the patience to stick around long enough to find out.

One book on my to-read list from a year ago was Ken Follett’s The Fall of Giants. Long ago I had loved his Pillars of the Earth, and since then I have optimistically tried others he has written. I think I am done trying now; his books are full of gratuitous sex, unnecessary to the plot or the characters’ development. It seems he just likes including the sordid details, but I don’t want to pollute my mind with those pictures. I set the book down (well, actually I deleted it from my reader, which is often rather satisfying) after about 25% into the book.

On the subject of books I couldn’t finish, Shades of Milk and Honey by Mary Robinette Kowall was enthusiastically recommended to me by the same son who told me to read Robin Hobbs. He said it would be a great complement to Pride and Prejudice. Now I begin to question his taste. It’s supposedly a fantasy-world-version of the beloved Jane Austen novel. Nope. I guess I’m a purist. This one didn’t even last as long as the latest Follett book before deleting it.

On a happier note, The Width of the World is the third book in the Vega Jane fantasy series by David Baldacci. He created a wonderful world replete with magical abilities, frightening creatures, and believable and endearing protagonists. It leaves me wanting more, so I will wait impatiently for book four. I highly recommend this series.

Next up was Belgravia by Julian Fellowes (creator of Downton Abbey), a quick and easy read, but not as deep and rich as his successful television series.

The Women in the Castle by Jessica Shattuck tells the story of women who survived World War Two and began putting their lives back together, trying to overcome the crushing blows they’d suffered, having lost everything. The book, while depressing and slow, was well-told. If you’re given to depression and dark moods, though, this book will not help brighten your outlook!

Since the movie will be coming out early this year, I have begun reading Ready Player One by Ernest Cline (from my to-read list a year ago). It’s a dystopian world, set in the future, of a contest reminiscent of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, perhaps set in The Matrix. This contest takes place in the virtual reality of an online universe, designed by a man who had grown up in the 1980s. So far it’s a very good read, super-geeky and adventurous.

What a short list! I need to read more, and I need more to read, so I always enjoy seeing what my readers recommend! What’s on your list?

To read in 2018:

  • Dune by Frank Herbert
  • Rooster Bar by John Grisham
  • The Whistler by John Grisham
  • The Buried Giant by Kasuo Ishiguro
  • Never Let Me Go by Kasuo Ishiguro
  • The Conquering Family: The Pageant of England, Volume 1 by Thomas Costain
  • Miss Buncle’s Book by D.E. Stevenson
  • Arcanum Unbounded by Brandon Sanderson
  • Oathbringer by Brandon Sanderson
  • The Accidental Empress by Allison Pataki

2 Comments

Filed under Literature, Uncategorized

Careful writing cares for your audience

correctingNot many high school students would think about it this way, but careful writing communicates respect. Good grammar, spelling, and punctuation are every bit as important as answering a writing prompt for your teacher.

The audience of a high school student is usually only one person: the teacher. A conscientious student will make sure to stay within the guidelines of that assignment, including careful editing. But as they go on into university and/or the “real world,” young people would do well to continue caring for their varied audiences. Grammar, spelling, punctuation–and the message–remain important, regardless of the audience or the writer.

I try very hard not to be obnoxious about it, but I begin twitching when I see poor writing. Bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation–at least to me–communicates that you do not care enough to try to get it right. Please don’t get me wrong: I don’t judge your character or level of education, and I admire that you are in business. Just spend a few extra dollars to have someone make sure you communicate well to your audience–and in this case, your customers.

Here are a few examples.

  1. Waiting for a local stage production to begin, we glanced at the ads flashing on the screen. A local fundraiser advertised a “Pankake Breakfast.” Wondering whether they meant to write it that way (twitch), I went to their website. No, it’s spelled correctly there, but some of their pages give evidence to their lack of care. One link was titled “Comming events.” Okay, local group, done quickly perhaps.tjtypo.jpg
  2. But then there’s Trader Joe’s, a great chain, one of my favorites. Set aside for a moment the distraction from how amazing the dessert looks. My question, upon reading this, is twofold: Is the shell buttery and tart (meaning acidic), or is it in a buttery pastry-tart shell? If the latter, that comma shouldn’t be there. If the former, why would you buy it? Think of the comma as meaning “and” in a list. bbq-cat.jpg
  3. And finally, this is most disturbing if you like cats. (I don’t, so I found it more amusing than troubling). This was in the calendar section of our local paper. I don’t care if the caption doesn’t belong to the photo above. It’s placed there, so I’m going to see it as such. (Really, would this poor feline be a main course in the fundraiser?) This can be blamed on the newspaper, not the advertiser.

So take my advice, whether you are a student or business person: Spend a few extra moments checking your work–essay, ad, news article, etc.–or find someone who can do it for you. It will save you some embarrassing moments, poor grades, or lost revenue. If you don’t care, that’s fine too. But I’m sure you’ll hear me twitching.

See some of my earlier posts about grammar, beginning here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Grammar, Homeschooling, Uncategorized

Great Expectations, adjusted

A mom asked me for help in what to do for her child, who was going to be out of class for the next two months due to some radical chemo treatments. Her young teenager has cancer. This wasn’t the first mom I’d met with a child in need of special treatment.

And in such cases I have to talk to mom and dad about adjusting their–and their child’s–expectations. There is no hard-and-fast rule out there for dealing with interrupted plans. The typical plan for a high school load each year wouldn’t work for this atypical situation. No rule says that at age 18 a child should graduate from high school and head off to university. Not every child fits that stereotype. This mom, and others like her, must adjust other circumstances in order to accommodate the family’s present needs.

Cases like this rise up often as I advise parents about educating their children. The whole child needs to be considered, I tell them, not just the amount and type of classes he is going to take each year. The family whose father just passed away: how does mom homeschool the children and find a job to support her family? The international move because of dad’s job: how can we consistently educate the children while we all adjust to a new living arrangement? And on and on the stories come.

Our great expectations continually need adjusting–the expectations of what my life will look like, of what my children will grow up to become, of good health all the way through my life, and more. What happens when the bottom drops out of my great expectations and I am left to reconsider everything?

What do I do when life hands me something other than what I had planned all along? What do I do with that disappointment?

compassion

A friend whose daughter began exhibiting signs of a mental illness wept. “This isn’t something her brothers and sisters should have to watch. They have the right to be normal teenagers, and not have to deal with their little sister unravelling in front of them.”

A family member who discovered her husband’s unfaithfulness after 35 years of marriage lamented that this shouldn’t happen to her after all they had been through together.

The mom–and many like her–with a daughter in chemotherapy wept as she and her family struggled to adjust to the heartache, the fear, the whirlwind that has been visited upon them.

As much as I weep with these friends and family members–and also in my own quest of adjusting to a life with chronic pain–I want to remind them that “normal” doesn’t exist.

And who can say that family members shouldn’t have to live with a sibling whose world has unraveled due to mental illness or life-altering illness? In God’s economy, nothing is wasted. He uses all things for good, for those who love him and who have been called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28-29). Living with someone’s illness can teach countless lessons in empathy, compassion, caregiving, unconditional love, and much, much more. The illness of a loved one is not a surprise to God; he will use it for his purposes and for his glory!

While it’s difficult, and maybe even feels insurmountable, I’ve found that I must adjust my thinking about expectations, looking more realistically about what “normal” means. In reality, we know that life is full of disappointment, tragedy, and challenge. Maybe that’s what’s “normal.”

Christian believers have been promised that life will be full of troubles. But–and here’s the most important BUT–we’ve also been promised that Christ will be with us nevertheless. Christ promises us, “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

Being visited by tragedy, challenge, disaster, or just run-of-the-mill teenage rebellion doesn’t mean the end for your family. It means that this is another opportunity to place your faith, your trust, in a God who will never leave nor forsake you (Hebrews 13:5).

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Health, Pain and suffering

Biblical Worldview Rhetoric: What’s worldview?

Second Edition coming soon!

Why is this book called Biblical Worldview Rhetoric?

An essential aspect of our upcoming rhetoric text is a study of worldview. This text guides students through an examination of the worldviews behind discourses (speeches, essays, letters, etc.) and their authors. Worldview is inextricable from rhetoric, for every person speaks from his worldview, even unconsciously. Once you begin to think in this manner, you will have a much more rich understanding of the use of rhetoric.

Think of “worldview” as  the glasses through which we see the world – how we interpret and give context to what we see. Everyone has a worldview, and every worldview is based on the philosophies to which we adhere.

A Biblical Worldview begins with the foundation – the understanding and the acknowledgment – that God is the author and creator of all things:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. (ESV, Colossians 1.15-23)

Teaching with a biblical worldview does not just mean attaching a Bible verse to the week’s lesson. It begins with the presupposition from Colossians, above. If God is the creator of all, and He holds all things together, does that affect the way we study the history, the people, the events? What drives people to do what they do? How do we react to the things that happen to us? How do we speak to and persuade one another? As we study, we take note of what sin does to the human mind, and how it drives people to act and react.

This kind of study means thinking presuppositionally: examining underlying ideas. Everyone has a worldview, has presuppositions with which they think and act, whether or not they are consciously aware of those ideas. When we seek to persuade a person, we also must identify and address (perhaps confront) his set of presuppositions, his worldview. This kind of study will inform how best to address someone whose ideas differ from ours.

We must study to approach our neighbors – our audience – armed with the truth. And we must know the worldviews by which they operate.

Ultimately, the goal of Biblical Worldview Rhetoric is to bring people to the Lord, but it’s not as simple as passing out tracts and reciting scripture at them. We must delve below the surface in order to get to the root of the problem, and as Dr. Michael Bauman of Hillsdale College says, “the problem of the human heart is at the heart of the human problem.” We know that the answers to all of humanity’s deepest questions can be found in God’s holy Word, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In other words, know the source of inspiration – the God of all Creation – and know your audience and how to address them. Only then will we be able to engage with people on what ultimately matters most of all: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Classical Education, Homeschooling, Rhetoric