[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 54 KB, 550x431, 93201930193.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18640675 No.18640675 [Reply] [Original]

Why has rhetoric been almost completely forgotten outside of garbage tier public speaking courses in college? In the era of media saturation you would expect everyone to be a master speaker but instead all the PMC have autism. t.b.h. the reason I started this thread is because Houellebecq is an absolutely garbage speaker and it makes me think worse of him, a writer or even any person is not whole if they can't project their ideas in their day to day life or before an audience. This is to say nothing about our politicians, who range from idiotic chuds on the evangelical side to literal aspergers like AOC.

>> No.18640679

>>18640675
>chuds
This is why everyone sucks at public speaking nowadays.

>> No.18640681

>>18640679
it's a meme on 4chan relax

>> No.18641293

>>18640675
Because it's an art, especially as it relates to poetry and to theater that's self-conscious of its status as such. Meta anything is never for anyone who doesn't take to art fine enough to move one, without music, as only music otherwise can. This is the reason that expository is never literary, and that mundane public speakers are almost as predictably formulaic as parodies of them.

>> No.18641306

public speaking sucks because no one wants to listen, they all rather dawdle their time away on touchscreens instead

>> No.18641329

>>18640675
I'd appreciate a contemporary book on the topic, OP or any other anon.

I've downloaded quite a few books on the topic on archiveDOTorg mostly from 19th century and I don't want to sound like an autist by using those techniques. I'm ESL, btw.

>> No.18641355

>>18640675
Media has changed. Being able to deliver a speech on the spot, play a crowed, respond to heckling, etc. doesn't matter any more because the crowds are reached through television, radio, etc. What's important is being able to read a speech, knowing decent typographic skills, and having control over organs of media dissemination. Current media technology is inherently anti-democratic. Briefly it looked like the internet would change this, but big tech has reversed all that. Welcome to totalitarian hell OP, global cataclysm is the only way out.

>> No.18641381

>>18641355
why listen to a speech now when i can always watch a recording of it later, not to mention it lets me pause at key points.

>> No.18641402

>>18640675
it hasn't, of course. but you probably went to a school that was free to attend, so you just aren't aware.
>>18641329
lend me your ears by max atkinson

>> No.18641410

Population has been dumbed down and made receptive to a tiny collection of the most plain, obvious ploys so it is no longer needed.

>> No.18641424

>>18641381
Exactly, so you take your time, pre-record a speech, layer some animations overtop, add in sound effects and music for emotional ambiance, and so on. There's no point in being a good public speaker, because the public has become something manufactured.

>> No.18641495

It is annoying when someone turns out to be a garbage speaker, I know what you mean. This can be made up for somewhat if you're in the room with them and you can actually feel the energy of the thought going on. Ray Brassier is a fairly poor speaker but he speaks with an unadorned earnestness and you can feel he feels the stakes of what he is talking about. That is rare enough, to be able to engage in thought in a space with someone like that. But someone like David Bentley Hart (who I haven't met in person) conveys a process of thinking as well without it feeling as fragmented or as frequently confusing. He's so good he's able to be somewhat off the cuff and searching, tentative. The bog standard would be someone who competently reads a paper prepared in advance with formulaic emphases and little to no spontaneity. You may as well read the paper and email them any questions you have.

To come around more directly to your question, I think what you need is an ability and willingness to put out the tentative feelers of thought, talk to yourself, write down your forming thoughts, be willing to discuss with other people a gamut of subjects. So to be alone and to be with people. Thomas de Quincey was said to be a fascinating talker while Coleridge was a monologist you had to be in the mood of setting aside a few hours for. The latter's prose work can be excruciating, de Quincey's almost never.

>> No.18641512

the less you try to wow and impress the crowd, the more impressive you end up becoming.
hence why the phrase less is more.

>> No.18641515
File: 133 KB, 640x1137, 1ss0r7v26u971.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18641515

>>18641410
This 100%

>> No.18641623

>>18641512
>hence why the phrase less is more.
Ironically, you don't need the "why" here

>> No.18641676

>>18640675
I learned rhetorics (and rhetorical analysis) in high school but that has since been completely forgotten by my conscious mind (perhaps some lower part of me remembers parts of it). I wonder how much of it matters really, it would be interesting to analyze the use of rhetorics and see if that predicts perceived speaking ability.

>> No.18641955

>>18640675
>the era of media saturation you would expect everyone to be a master speaker
No you wouldn't, unless of course you were retarded.
/thread

>> No.18641971

>>18641955
why on earth would you possibly consider people be master speakers if they barely speak to each other?

>> No.18642195

>>18640675
>the reason I started this thread is because Houellebecq is an absolutely garbage speaker and it makes me think worse of him
isn't houellebecq just playing a role in public