This week, our class has focused on Roman rhetors, and we’ve read Cicero's "From De Oratore," Quintilian's "From Institutes of Oratory”, Longinus' "On the Sublime," and the Rhetorica ad Hernemmium.
All of these are important works, but it is the Rhetorica ad Hernemmium that has probably had the most effect on us personally in the present day. Why? Because this work, of unknown authorship but formally attributed to Cicero, was the first to suggest that ubiquitous, standardized, argument format that we know from our school days as the five part essay.
The five-part essay and its evil clone the five-paragraph essay regrettably evolved from the six steps of the Rhetorica ad Herennium:
Rhetorica ad Herennium | 5-Part Essay | 5-Paragraph Essay |
Exordium: capture attention through a common statement and connect it to the specific topic. Narratio: state arguments/thesis | Introduction: state the topic and the thesis | Introduction: state the topic and the thesis |
Divisio: outline the main points | Narration: review background information and main points that will be made | |
Confirmatio: the arguments (typically three) for the thesis and the evidence | Affirmation: present the arguments (typically three) and evidence | Body Paragraph 1: the first thesis Body Paragraph 2: the second thesis Body Paragraph 3: the third thesis |
Confutatio: refute the arguments | Negation: present evidence and arguments against the thesis | |
Conclusio: summarize the argument and suggest next steps | Conclusion: summarize the argument and suggest next steps | Conclusion: summarize the argument and restate the thesis |
As we have grown into ‘man’s estate’ and left behind the trappings of childhood, most of us have long since abandoned writing in this restrictive, unimaginative, and simplistic form. But not all of us. Some of us in the secondary school system and even in some, gasp, institutions of higher learning still cling to the old ways like a security blanket.
So what’s so bad about the five-paragraph essay, you ask? Like Thomas E. Nunnally, I would answer this question with another question, “What is wrong with a bicycle with training wheels?”. [1] The answer is obvious: there is nothing wrong with training wheels when one is learning, but you no longer need them when you’ve become proficient at riding. Thus it is with the five-paragraph essay...its structure helps you learn, but once you understand the basic structure, you are free to go beyond it’s restrictive walls. The problem is, though, that not everyone sees rules as what they are: suggestions.
Consider another example from Kimberly Wesley, an English teacher in a private secondary school. She was asked by a senior student, “How can I fit seven pages into five paragraphs?” for a comparative novel assignment. According to her student, the only kind of writing considered "good," the only kind of essay that would earn an "A" from the teacher, must have a thesis with exactly three points, no more, no less. [2]
Where am I going with 'my' argument? I guess that we need to learn from classical rhetors and from classical texts, certainly, but that good writing needs to be more than just following a set format. The works we’ve studied this week show us the basics of argumentation and clear writing. We need to take this knowledge and use it to go beyond prescriptive methodology and make good writing, and good rhetoric, truly our own.
[1] Nunnally, Thomas E. Breaking the Five-Paragraph-Theme Barrier. The English Journal, Vol. 80, No. 1. (Jan., 1991), pp. 67-71.
[2] Wesley, Kimberly. The Ill Effects of the Five Paragraph Theme Author(s). The English Journal, Vol. 90, No. 1, Teaching Writing in the Twenty-First Century (Sep., 2000), pp. 57-
Debbie,
ReplyDeleteYou’ve raised some excellent points here and made some excellent connections between modern times and the olden days. I especially agree with your ideas of not getting too hung up on format (when there is room for change, which might not always be the case in the business world). Your idea reminds me of an argument I recent read that was made by Carolyn Rude.
Chapter 6 of Central Works in Technical Communication, The Report for Decision Making, is an essay by Rude. In short, she makes that well-defended argument that writers must be flexible in their writing in that they must make the piece responsive to the rhetorical context of the situation. In other words, even when aims are the same, the routes taken to accomplish the aim will vary in some cases depending on audience, time, budget, etc. Thus, like you, in her essay, she argued that standard formats would sometimes need to take a back seat to accomplishing the goal and reaching the audience.
That isn’t to say format is not important. It promotes branding, consistency, and, sometimes, even comprehension (if the reader is already accustomed to the format). But that doesn’t mean there aren’t times when deviation should be allowed----particularly in the interests of rigor and clarity.
In fact, this is something I am pushing for where I work. We write a lot of documents that contain only one key piece of information---one logical thread, but, because we must be rigorous, we have to introduce the other possible threads, too---and then we have to turn around and say why the logic thread we chose is the best---and the one we chose is all the client cares about. Specifically, we deal with chemical cleanups. And the argument we make is what dose/concentration the chemical must be cleaned up to in order to protect animal and human life. I, and others, feel that secondary threads (the other values) get in the way of the primary thread….we force our clients to read 50 pages when they need only to read 10.
Accordingly, I, and a few others, are pushing for the secondary threads (the other “nonkey” values and studies that produced those values) to be put in appendices----all the logic would be there and explanations as to why those approaches/values were subpar to the one chosen and integrated in the main text is still present---it’s just out of the way. The difference is now we have one clear argument presented unencumbered in the main text, and, if the client then desires the rigor piece, he or she can then read that garner that from appendices.
In an academic setting, I don’t know that this division would be appropriate, but, for our client, who cares only about the key study and the value EPA sets, this would be a more efficient way to deliver that information---without sacrificing rigor.
Cris
I agree with you Debbie, the 5 paragraph essay today does seem somewhat narrow for teaching writing. With developing ideas, it makes me wonder how the 5 paragraph essays gets in the way in sort of a McLuhan way: "The medium is the message." Meaning, how much time do students spend simply trying to make their ideas fit the five paragraph essay, rather than shaping an essay around their ideas? Probably a lot, would be my guess, after teaching for the last 10 years.
ReplyDeleteI tell students the five paragraph essay is not a bad place to start in terms of writing a thesis and an introduction, but to then shake free of the constraints and see how their ideas develop over time.
Clear writing, as you describe at the end of your post, may be rhetorical in terms of style (eloquence) or in terms of logos. Or both?
How does logic play a role in contemporary strategies to document creation? Where is writing going today, both in terms of the writing you're doing in your profession and the writing others are doing?
ReplyDeleteI never learned to use a 5 paragraph essay format. Perhaps my composition instructors were much less rigid than yours.
ReplyDelete