Wayne C. Booth (1921–2005)

I picked up and read "Rhetoric" from the perspective of an author-wannabe, so my copy is now scored with underlines and margin notes that will enable me to keep my interpretations and its key points straight when I browse through it later for reference. It goes beyond grammer/syntax advice, beyond plot/character/theme construction, to explore what actually makes a good novel a good novel. I'm not taking away any hard and fast lessons - Mr. Booth largely dispenses with the possibility of such show more things - but I have now been made witness to many enlightening examples. It makes me interested in pursuing works I previously had no desire to read (e.g. Tristram Shandy, Tom Jones, Madame Bovary, possibly Ulysses and the works of Henry James and Graham Greene, among a few others) because I'm better positioned to appreciate the telling of these tales, not just the tales themselves. I can see "Rhetoric" being a worthwhile read for anyone who would like to acquire a similar appreciation.

Someone wiser than me summarized this book's thesis as "all narrative is rhetoric". An author has tangible presence in his/her fiction novel, however well disguised or aloof he/she strives to be (and many have tried very hard, depending on changing trends in critcism of how obvious / how much obvious presence is judged acceptable). There is a second self thus produced by the author, here called the 'implied author', in the course of writing a fiction piece, that suggests a personality who is pulling the strings behind the scenes. This implied author is tantamount to being a character in the story, and should not be equated with the actual author. The actual author needs to be aware of this implied presence he/she is creating and its effect on how the reader perceives and reads the story. A good author, writing a good novel, will be aware of and use this presence to his/her advantage by being fully aware of what he/she is making a case for and employ good rhetoric accordingly.

I'm led to wonder, how much of what I would have called an author's style is more correctly attributed as characteristics of this "implied author" concept? I think my next step should be to find a book that takes what Mr. Booth produced here and explores that question. I'd like to obtain a firmer understanding of what is meant by "style" in the context of this book's thesis. show less

The act of research – whether in the natural sciences, social sciences, or humanities – undergirds so much of modern society. The skills help us think and then test those thoughts in light of outside information (data). Without a rigorous set of methods, this act can become mere people pleasing, but with a firm framework, it continues to transform the way the world lives. This book, an educational standard for almost three decades with five authors, clearly communicates research’s show more foundations to those learning the craft. It’s appropriate for the classroom and individuals starting careers.

All authors were or are professors of English, so this book has a natural leaning towards the humanities. Nonetheless, it attempts to address all facets of the academic enterprise. Because the authors are involved with language, it communicates cognitive nuances that might be missed by experts in a field. Its wording is eloquent, and organization, tight.

Like most academic works, this book heavily relies on concepts and classical works, yet it also uses relatable, conversational English to convey its message. It walks readers through steps including why to identify as a researcher, how to pursue the process, how to think carefully, and how to communicate findings. As easily imaginable, the authors do a superb job of enhancing readers’ personal writing style in the last chapter.

We live in an information age where thinking about the world has become the most important skill. Ironically, some question the value of an education even in an information-rich environment. If information is freely available, they ask, what do universities have to offer? This book offers a forthright answer. A college education and research training offer students the ability to think and process the world constructively. Especially suited for later later undergraduates and early graduate students, this book shines a clear path forward for individual careers and ultimately society’s advance. show less

Great read! I learned a lot about why authors in the post-Flaubert/Henry James era of modern fiction became so obsessed with eliminating all traces of narratorial commentary from their novels (that is, why modern fiction sought to privilege "showing" over "telling"), and Booth does a great job of questioning what should certainly be seen as an ideological insistence on certain modes of storytelling that only rarely question their own premises. That is, if Henry James was really quite show more responsible and dedicated in his discussions of why the presentation of dramatic scenes where stories more or less tell themselves, he also seemed to understand that this was an ideal that no text achieves. As Booth demonstrates, you can disguise the "telling" of a story in a lot of different ways so that it looks like the narrator isn't intruding on the narrative and injecting his or her own subjective views on the matter at hand, but you can't completely avoid using strategies that show your hand as the story's creator in various subtle ways.

The Rhetoric of Fiction gives some great practical guidance for readers of novels. I feel like I'm much more attuned to some of the subtleties of novel writing than I was before. I don't necessarily agree with his overarching concern with rescuing a certain moral function for the novel (that is, as he himself admits in an afterword written 20 years after the book's original publication, he is rather overzealous in his condemnation of books like Céline's Voyage au bout de la nuit due to their immorality), but his own historically-situated conclusions don't take anything away from his analyses of modern fiction. And, in fact, they're challenging in that I don't want to agree with his insistence on the moral function of fiction, but I'm not sure I have good reasons for disagreeing.

It's always refreshing to read classics like this, and I'd definitely recommend it. The Rhetoric of Fiction helped me understand late-19th and early-20th century literature in ways I hadn't necessarily thought of before. show less

I'm giving it two stars because it did have a handful of helpful points. But only a handful.

I'm working on a book and thought reading this might be a good foundation/review before doing so. I was wrong. I just wasted three months of my time.

The issues are many fold. Firstly the near rage inducing repetition. I could make a hefty list of all the things that were mentioned no less then 30 or 40 times. I wish I were exaggerating. I really do. 90% of the book is information I learned in and show more around forth grade, and even then it's presented poorly. The bias against research and exploratory research reaches the point of near violence. Everything is a rhetorical battle, not an honest presentation of facts and reason. If I had followed this book during my prior degree I would had done so poorly that I might have been asked to leave.

The STEM bias is carried over to the point of ridiculousness. Anything that cannot carry some dramatic point or solve some earth shattering problem is dismissed out of hand.

Which brings me to the next issue, the "problem". Not everything is a "problem". There is not always going to be a "problem". A great deal of writing is done for relevance to a topic, for the furtherance of understanding for those who work within a field. Or just because the topic is fun and it's fun to learn more about it. Yet the book is near silent on how to make a topic interesting, instead devoting the overwhelming majority of its bulk to "problems". Leading a non-problem reader to look at it and say "so what?"

Both these writing realities are utterly disparaged. If you intend to do either of these styles of writing avoid this book like the plague. It will only frustrate you.

As mentioned before, it does have a few useful points. However I can't help but feel the basic tips could have found in a book that wouldn't have turned out to be to frustratingly useless otherwise.

I did for find a writing guide mentioned in the bibliography that looks promising. If only any of the writers of this book had was it before writing this one. This book is time I'm never getting back. show less