Smith succinctly details her own definition of what rhetoric is, including the various cons and pros to the discourse, along with how it functions en masse, generally. However, she fails to denote with any real accuracy the actual substance with which she is creating purposeful literature. She fails to see rhetoric as a potentially global and temporal currency, instead focusing on the divisive natures and “should nots” of said institution. Her definition does not account for the adhering and connective aspect of rhetoric. Though she does mention the ever pervasive and often overlooked nature of everyday rhetoric, along with the stigmas that educated rhetoric carries, she does not highlight the great potential that said discourse holds and stores. If rhetoric can be and is any endless forms of communication, then why not focus on that unfettered network? It of course goes without saying that any and every discourse will face barriers and judgments, but rather than investigate those walls so closely, instead extrapolate on what one currently has in the hopes of glimpsing a more connected “possibility”. For there is an unformed possibility of the future, immediate and distant, that exists for every thing present, and to harness that knowledge, to accept the infinite potentiality and delve into the world of rhetoric itself, with that open ended mindset, would be infinitely more altruistic and enlightening. Overall, Smith fails to explain the vast tethering aspect of rhetoric, with her definition focusing too much on what she currently has concretely, not what we all could have potentially.<\/p>\n

-Brittany DuPhily<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Smith succinctly details her own definition of what rhetoric is, including the various cons and pros to the discourse, along with how it functions en masse, generally. However, she fails to denote with any real accuracy the actual substance with which she is creating purposeful literature. She fails to see rhetoric as a potentially global … Continue reading “Rhetorical Analysis 9\/4\/17”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29,"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27\/revisions\/29"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org\/WeeklyWriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}