1. You may write a paper in which you focus specifically on a particular rhetorical theorist or concept we have studied in class. Your task will be to “fill in” all the things we were not able to explore in class or in your reading. In other words, your paper will represent a very “detailed” account of the rhetorician at hand or of the concept in that rhetorician’s corpus of ideas. In this sense, your paper could include material we never covered in class or did not cover in any detail. It will tell me things about the theorist or the concept that extend our knowledge in ways that go beyond what we learned in class.
Introduction
• Briefly introduce your subject (2-3 sentences)
• When appropriate, state your thesis (what is it, specifically, that you are arguing about the particular rhetorical theorist or concept)
• Explain your rationale (why should we study this person/concept)
• Provide a purpose-statement (how do you intend to proceed in the paper)
• The whole introduction should run between 1-2 pages
Body
• Describe in detail the rhetorical theorist or concept
• Compare and contrast the theorist/concept with other thinkers/concepts
• Use precise passages from the works of the rhetorical theorist under consideration and from secondary sources (e.g., Brummett, Herrick, or any commentaries listed in the bibliographies supplied by these two authors) to make your case
• Provide examples of the ideas you are trying to explain – e.g., what would examples of Aristotle’s enthymeme or of rhetorical “virtue” look like? What does Campbell mean by “plausibility” or by “analogy”? Give instances of Plato’s “moral rhetoric” or of his critique of sophistry.
Conclusion
• Brief summary of what you have found
• What are the implications of your study: What is it that you have learned? Why is it important? What are the real-life, modern day ramifications of the ideas you have unearthed?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|