I was rather surprised by the reaction that I immediately felt after reading “A Magnanimous Proposal” by James. I found myself quickly and actively searching for the latest and greatest in politically driven proposal arguments to analyze while reading many times the Webster’s definition of the Rogerian argument technique. I know that mine isn’t a typical response to a simple post assignment like this one but I am anything but typical in my response to nearly any issue regarding politics or the political scene in the United States and my new-found love for argument analysis. That aside, I love the description and active analysis that James provides of the key components of proposal argument and their application to honing and refining the writing skills of the brilliant untrained writer. The further I read and review James’s post it forces me to, just as in the last reading assignment, return to the textbook and review what I thought I perceived as a true and good proposal argument.
Clearly James has a better general understanding of argument that I have but I respond to that challenge by forcing myself to know and understand rhetoric and proposal arguments better than the author who simply writes well and has a linguistic capability that easily trumps my own. James is correct in the use of the Rogerian argument technique which does provide a common denominator that is typically lacking in formal debate and I appreciate and applaud James for employing his understanding of it. I have a lot to learn and learn a lot each and every time I read a post from a great writer. Reading “A Magnanimous Proposal” by James motivates me to look past some of my rhetorical shortcomings and pushes me to analyze my own writing with the same scrutiny that I use when analyzing the writing of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment