It’s like those arrow pads in Crash Team Racing, except for rhetoric

When I think of rhetorical velocity, I think of articles that get retweeted with the account adding a compelling sentence of text. Writing in anticipation of recomposition demands a familiarity with what compels individuals to engage with your writing in the first place. By identifying the causes of initial audience engagement, one can foresee subsequent activity beyond the primary. I have never approached my writing with strategic recomposition in mind. Not that I haven’t wanted my thoughts or views to be circulated while I enjoy proper attribution, but it just seems like an intellectually shallow purpose as an individual without a broader objective. Writing with strategic recomposition in mind means being rejecting that purity I just described and understanding that word of mouth is the most effective endorsement, and people need to be led to those endorsements if the campaign goal is going to be vigorously pursued. Having a consistent message throughout the writing that restates your thesis in different ways that can appeal to a more diverse audience might be effective. For example, using a metaphor might resonate more strongly with some people, while using statistics to explain the same argument might appeal to others. Providing options while remaining consistent in substance could really promote circulation and staying power.

One thought on “It’s like those arrow pads in Crash Team Racing, except for rhetoric

  1. You brought up an interesting point when describing the ethics of recomposing other’s work. You call writing with the intent of other’s reusing it “an intellectually shallow purpose as an individual without a broader objective.” I agree that it can be slightly superficial to expect people to recompose your work if the is no big cause or issue being conveyed. Perhaps another way of thinking about it is that your topic/issue is being recomposed rather than your exact words.
    I also found it interesting that you wrote that writing with the purpose of recomposition means that you have to reject that purity. It seems that if your intent is for other’s to recompose your work, you will have to manipulate or provoke your audience to do so. This manipulation is possibly where you have to reject that purity.
    I think that your point about providing your audience with many different options (i.e. metaphors and statistics) for recomposition is extremely valid and I will keep this in mind when revising my campaign pieces.

Comments are closed.