cmjr205 Verderber questions

1. During Plato's lifetime he asserted that the spoken word is the superior form of communication giving the reason that the written word can not be counted on to give any other explanation than what is already presented on the page - written words "go on telling you the same thing over and over forever."

I don't agree with this particular thought process of Plato's. I believe if anything that it is a bit outdated for the reality which we live in today. Plato's reality included many illiterate peoples who still relied on gaining information and finding out about social norms through oral traditions. Our reality includes the printing press - allowing for mass production of books and in mre recent years the internet which allows for the dispersment of electronic books, newspapers, television transcripts, editorial opinions all within reach of the average citizen. This development not only allows for the dissemination of critical information but also for the public to create an active dialogue with other people (and, in essence, the written work) to change and re-interpret what the written word is telling us.

Plus I believe that if the written word were so inferior to the spoken word than noone would have ever found it necessary to write anything down. History would have been lost. As is, the way things stand, history may have been manipulated to fit the authors perceptions or agenda - but thanks to many unacknowledged active participants (activists, relatives, war survivors) who saved letters and diaries and who had the courage to stand up and challenge the popularly accepted events of history have definatley contributed in giving the written word more weight - it has even allowed the written word to challenge thoughts/ideas which we may have carried with us since childhood.

Plus without the ability of the written word to change there would be no need for expensive new addition textbooks. I am just curious as to if any one else would agree with me?

2. Rudolph Verderber outlines the steps of relevance in a speech. His second step states "a second way of demonstrating relevance is to show that the infomation has a direct impact on a listener's personal space." As I read this paragraph further I came to the conclusion that the relevance is implicit to the speech. My reasoning is as follows: Most of the speeches that people attend have some importance to them already- people go because they are interested in the subject, are fascinated by the person who is speaking or are attending some type of seminar.

I don't know of many people who go to hear a speech by accident or because there is nothing better to do. So since relevance is implicit, in my opinion, why would it really be necessary to (as the author says) "let me bring this closer to home by showing you that..."? The only way that I see bringing the subject closer to home or showing relevance might be if the speaker is trying to change an audience members attitudes towards the subject - such as is happening at this time with the Seattle school closures or the town hall meetings about allowing sex offende housing in their neighborhood.

3. Verderber also talks about facilitating audience understanding or, as I am understanding it from hs writing, allowing people to remain ignorant. Speakers are encouraged to "err on the side of expecting too little knowledge rather than of expecting too much." I find this rule of thumb to be condascending.

I agree with prefacing your speech material but I also believe that many rhetors take this piece of advice too far and end up spoon feeding the audience with all of the necessary information needed to at least follow along with the speaker for the duration of his presentation.

However, I find fault with this approach when it takes away or deters audience members of joining with the dialogue by feeling as if they are not encouraged to ask questions or contribute in some other meaningful manner. The prefacing statements which Verderber uses as examples, ("As we all learned in our high school courses...", "As we have come to find out...", "As you will remember...") shut down a potential portion of the audience who may be immigrants whom didn't graduate from high school, or who may be new to the community. But when you talk to an audience as a collective it does not make for an especially open environment for the exchange of ideas. And nobody wants to stand up in the middle of a crowd and admit to the fact that they are not familiar (a part of) with the recollections (memories/history) of the group. Prefacing allows these people to "act as if they do in fact remember."

I don't beleive that anyone should be talked to in this manner. Some people will go home and look further into the material that they have just received but many more will blindly accept because they have been spoonfed so much during their lives that they either don't know how to think for themselves anymore or even know where to go to explore different views or gain a better understanding of what they just heard.

Does this create a sheep in the herd mentality or am I totally off base?