Reading Notes #1

"Rhetorics Fast and Slow"
Lester Faigley

To begin with, I thought that this article was very interesting and although I enjoyed both of the articles we had to read for last Thursday's class, I agreed slightly more with the points that Faigley was not only trying to iterate, but the underlying concepts he was presenting.

What I like most about this piece, was that although Faigley was making a clear point that we have to be aware of the new media, or this rhetoric as it is changing but also that we cannot forget about the slow rhetoric and the underlying basis of or English curriculum. Fast is good for certain things, but not at the expense of losing the meaning of rhetoric itself or leaving individuals behind. In a world in which everything seems to be 1000 miles per hour, slow rhetoric, too, is something we much still be aware of.

pg. 50, left: Faigley makes the point that fast rhetoric dominates our world. Especially for us (people my age and younger) this is a valid statement. I could not live a month without internet and if it were dial-up, I don't think I could deal with it. I think with this statement he is truly capturing not only his personal definition of this fast rhetoric, but is allowing us to see how much it consumes our lives.

pg. 51: This statement of the dominating character of fast rhetoric is again revisited with the list he supplies discussing cell phone, checking email, the money we waste, and the overall resentment we have for all that is slow and the seconds within the day that we feel we are losing.

pg. 51, left: Although Faigley understands the importance of such fast rhetoric, he also takes into consideration how such an input of vast information, coming at us from all directions and at a fast pace, leads to less understanding. Is this good? In a world where decisions are made that affect the whole, can we really afford to have more information but less understanding? And is this necessarily better?

pg. 51, right: Faigley reiterates this (previous) point by stating that "Fast has overwhelmed slow." and "Speed brings risks." Personally, I think that because this fast rhetoric is so new, we have not seen all the implications that it might bring yet. Although fast rhetoric I believe, can be a good thing and connects us through networks, etc, I believe that it can't just take over the basic frameworks in place or the slow rhetoric. I feel that this will just serve to make individuals more unequal and can even serve to make society less rather than more connected.

pg. 52, right: Finally, I think that Faigley truly captures what he means by stating that "the fate of the future generations will depend on how well the students we teach can use slow rhetoric." Languages, writing, constructing a poem, or even a letter on a piece of stationary are all things that I fear might be lost if fast rhetoric continues to not only take over, but as it continues to overwhelm. As a society and as learners and teachers these things are all still very important, at least in my view.

Discussion
Although I tend to agree with Faigley more than some of the other readings we have had thus far, I still think that fast rhetoric is something not only important to but vital to place in our curriculum. Especially in a world of growing people, globalization, more complicated technologies and just the basic disconnect we have with one another, I think that slow rhetoric will be an important component. Although even more importantly though, I think that we need to find a way to teach this fast rhetoric and non-textual components in society (such as this wikipedia, etc) in a way that is more efficient and understood (rather than just a compilation of information without explanation.

Furthermore, as I discussed in class, we also need to find a way to make such a fast rhetoric available to all, not just to those that can afford it. In doing so, we can help ameliorate this divide and disconnect that such fast rhetoric threatens to do.

Questions
1.) Should we value more information or simply a better understanding of the information already available to us?
2.) Will fast rhetoric truly help globalize the world in which we live, creating a network that links us all to one another, or will it create a greater divide that threatens to make us more individualized and disconnected?
3.) Can a curriculum be made to include both slow and fast rhetoric? And how can teachers not trained in these types of rhetoric teach their students the trade? And if they can't, will this be a problem for future generations or will they figure it out on their own?