In trying to research the delivery of texts, Ridolfo constructs a practitioner story: a narrative about how a specific writer composed and delivered their text to multiple audiences for multiple purposes.Of what value are practitioner stories like these? What do such stories teach us about writing and editing?
Getting perspectives from people who have experience in any type of field is an incredible way to get best practices, to see what changes can be made, a way to understand the history and flow of a process, and a starting point for what can still be made of process. Ridolfo's article on rhetorical delivery as the "fifth canon" and how this form of communicating can expand the ways we get information across as well as how using qualitative case examples assists in this method. This value I think definitely is important especially with such a shift in going from print to digital media. Rhetoric for the ancient Greeks for the most part, was by word of mouth and using language to convey ideas and get people to think a certain way. Taking out that actual in person voice, moving to just text, and presently sharing that text digitally looks incredibly different. The value in practitioner stories like these help us to understand how we can further translate our message rhetorically while keeping in mind today's society's expectations, limitations and gratifications. For example, people expect information faster these days but not everyone has the same access and therefore the level of satisfaction varies depending on what information is obtained by the individual. I think these stories tell us that editing and writing I don't think will ever be full developed. I feel since the dawn of scribes, writing and editing have never been solidified because they are constantly being updates to fit new mediums and therefore new structures to deliver the strongest message possible. I think it will be interesting to see in twenty years what a practitioner says about how rhetoric works.
ReplyDeletePractitioner stories are valuable to our study of deliver because unlike primarily theoretical text like Porter's, Ridolfo's text "includes the rhetorician and her texts," and this inclusion is "theoretically generative for thinking about rhetorical delivery and designing future studies," (121). Corser, the women who's story we read, "learned to think about delivery in this way because of a range of previous activist experiences" (123). What stories like these gives young writers like us is a chance to learn from the experience of others. Certain delivery strategies emerged from this real life rhetorical situation such as the idea that "it’s strategic to deliver the [text] to a certain group of individuals first," and that "choice of media
ReplyDeletechanged depending on time and audience," (124). We as digital readers and writers with infinite access to information often demand proof for people's claims, and the claims about delivery in Ridolfo's text feel tangible and real because they are illustrated within the success of Corser's text.
One other important element within Ridolfo's piece is the idea that delivery and circulation can shift in unpredictable ways. The chart on page 126 shows how Corser's manifesto ultimately reached far more readers than she initially intended. As she was presented opportunities to deliver her manifesto in different ways, she had to adapt the text to meet people's expectations for different genres like newspapers and the email. This shows the importance of being a versatile writer who is more committed your message's core rather than your message as it exists in one particular genre or format. Texts are more fluid than I first believed. While one cannot always predict how a text circulates, crafting and delivering a text properly the first time in its original form is perhaps the best way to ensure a chance for circulation in other mediums and genres in order to reach as many readers as possible.
The value of the practitioner story that Ridolfo told is learning and teaching opportunity for people that also want to deliver their message to multiple different groups of people. When addressing different groups with the same message, it’s important to plan out what problems or questions may arise from your audience. This story taught us multiple things about writing and editing. For example, the first group that Maggie delivered her text to was an audience that wasn’t critical to the idea behind her manifesto. Ridolfo states how this audience was, “ …a safe space to receive feedback…an audience that would be receptive to her words.” With this first delivery of her work comes her first editing opportunity to change some points in the manifesto that may strengthen her piece once she delivers it to a more critical audience. Then when it was time to meet with a more critical audience she met with males on a one-on-one basis. Maggie knew they were going to be more critical so it was crucial not to get overwhelmed. By writing out and perfectly staging these meetings, “she was able to reach her target audience in a particular way,” said Ridolfo. These first two deliveries gave Maggie both editing and writing lessons to put into use. Ridolfo explains this as something for the reader to learn from. It was interesting to continue reading and see that the third delivery Maggie made was more widespread. Her manifesto was now emailed to other universities. At this point, “The delivery of the document was being shared in modes, media, and forms that Corser did not initially anticipate when she strategized her initial round of one-on-one meetings.” This goes to show that if delivering a piece of work correctly, it can spread and possibly go viral. Writing is powerful and so is the delivery of your writing—keep in mind the time, place and media in which it’s distributed.
ReplyDeleteI think practitioner stores like the one used by Ridolfo, help people develop a better understanding about delivery not as just a tool, but as a process. I think it’s important for people to build off of the experiences and trials of those previous. Sometimes we must learn through the failures and success of others, we must realize that the best way to move forward is to analyze what has happened in the past. I think the practitioner stories highlight the idea of using the audience to your own advantage when it comes to delivery. It’s important to understand how different media can be implemented for multiple audiences. I think these stories help with the cultural shift from printed form to digital form when it comes to delivery text. Each form contains certain expectations of them and Corser even mentions this phenomenon stating that “materials take on new meanings in different contexts” (123).
ReplyDeleteI think the story also placed emphasis on planning. Although of course nothing can be completely without a margin of error, it’s important to understand that external factors can influence the level of success or failure. There needs to be some degree of premeditated misinterpretation, and it’s not about trying to eliminate it but trying to reduce it to the lowest extent. It think all of this teaches us that writing and editing will always be a co-constitutive process. It will always be developing and adapting to time, space, culture and other external factors. I think in any medium knowledge of delivery and circulation in multiple forms is beneficial to any text.
Practitioner stories in my opinion are a lot more helpful than reading someone's theories. It is one thing to read a technical analysis of someone's own thought process on how something will or is supposed to work and reading the process of how someone went from idea to finished product/reception. Practitioner stories are more relatable and therefore are more likely to be read in their entirety instead of just skimming for main points. Plus it is nice to know that tribulation is not for not. There is more to a work than the work itself; there is the stress, drudgery, discontent, fear, and pride that goes into that made it worth the time to begin with. With the stories we get the process of a real person that lets us know that as writers, in the end we are doing something, not just for ourselves, but for an audience. Because there is an audience delivery is important, but it is only a part. When it comes to delivery what is important to take into consideration is the time, place, and media. What is most important is that with each time we deliver something we learn. From out learning we become more concise, eloquent, and more effective.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the value of practitioner's stories can be summed up in a single quote provided by Ridolofo: " This sequence of events unfolds before the rhetor responsible for the discursive acts relatively clearly; however, for the rhetorician these events are difficult to classify without some kind of empirical/human subjects research." (127) We can follow the trail of a delivered text, but we can never understand what made that path possible. I think, overall, the effectiveness of practitioner's stories can really help to give context to Porter's topoi. In interviewing Corser, Ridolfo has essentially uncovered the way that distribution/circulation function in real situations. This story and similar ones teach us that there is a limit to the amount of control we have in circulation. Corser's manifesto extended further than originally intended. Her writing and editing practices changes when she needed to adapt her text into a bulleted list. I think her experience really speaks to the fact that digital delivery doesn't allow writers to hit 'publish' and be done.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, think that practitioner's stories provide limitations. Although they help to see the how behind the what, they're also extremely limited. As Ridolfo points out, hindsight is always going to affect the way the story is told (127). There are probably thousands of variables that exist inside of any rhetorical situation, and I think that these stories leave many of those out. The circulation of her manifesto may have been entirely different if any one variable changed, but that seems to not be taken into account here. I see how practitioner's stories help to make "real" examples out of primarily theoretical territory, but I feel that we need more to learn a significant amount about writing and editing.
After reading through this text I think I can say that these Practitioner Stories are of value in a lot of different ways. For one, they can teach us about things that might not come to our own understanding as easily. I think in some ways reading someone’s theoretical text might be a lot more difficult to comprehend and understand rather than a story written out in detail and fully explained. We are also reading from their own personal experience which makes it relatable to the reader and also a learning experience in writing something like this. The value of these practitioner stories also allows for us on an outlook of the way multiple groups of people view and think about things. Without this outlook, many doors would have not opened especially things involving transitioning from a print medium to a digital medium. As far as a writing/editing goes with these stories I think there is a lot to learn from. One thing I took away from a writing/editing standpoint was planning. They emphasized planning earlier in some of the stories and I could see how in some cases that it was effective and was something that needed to be considered during this writing or editing process. These stories also I think can teach us how to write for a wide audience of people whilst hopefully achieving some kind of goal across each of your readers. These kinds of things are very useful I feel like in the grand scheme of things since it helps you learn to write for a wide variety of readers and also can help track yourself while writing.
ReplyDeleteAs Ridolfo clarifies prior to delving into the story of Maggie Corser, practitioner stories are valuable because they include “the rhetorician and her texts” (121). Although they do not produce generalized knowledge, the value lies in this inclusion. Unlike theory, practitioner stories allow us to look at specific cases of delivery – what factors made up that case, and how the text was received. This is incredibly valuable because it allows us to study how delivery works and apply our understanding of why that text was a success or failure to our own editing and writing. Additionally, Ridolfo states, “this inclusion of rhetorician can be theoretically generative for thinking about rhetorical delivery and designing future studies” (121). Practitioner stories allow us the opportunity to see theory (such as Porter’s topoi) applied in action – giving us the ability to examine how the theory is being used, how it operates, and it acts as a learning tool to understand the process of delivery.
ReplyDeleteAn important aspect of practitioner stories to note is explained by Ridolfo: “This sequence of events unfolds before the rhetor responsible for discursive acts relatively clearly; however, for the rhetorician these events are difficult to classify without some kind of empirical/human subjects research” (127). Practitioner stories help guide in understanding the process of delivery – to learn from studying true experiences.
I think these stories teach us that editing and writing is affected by a multitude of elements, and they give us a specific instance in which to study how a text works.
After reading Porter's theories on the delivery of texts, Ridolfo's story proved valuable as a real-life example of delivery.
ReplyDeleteThere is a great deal to be gained from Ridolfo's piece. First of all, it has much to say about different kinds of delivery. First and foremost, it shows that texts must be adapted to suit various audiences or situations involved. For instance, when Maggie Corser distributed her manifesto to a male activist group which she thought would not be desiring of it, she decided that face-to-face discussion would be the most viable form of delivery and chose to have one-on-one conversations with each person. As the text was circulated later on, Corser saw it continually remediated, with an editor asking her at one point to rewrite the manifesto as a bulleted list.
Ridolfo's piece also shows the impact of digital technology on distribution. Corser initially distributed the text in a physical form, but it never truly took off until her email delivery - and when it did take off, its reach enormously expanded as it was continually redistributed, eventually becoming published in the newspaper 'The Student Housing Cooperative.'
However, something more significant I gained from reading this piece was the importance of ensuring the quality of a text before it is distributed, and how to do this, something that Porter never really touched on in his topoi. Corser initially discussed her manifesto with a woman's group, an audience that would be sympathetic to her cause and provide helpful feedback. Had she not taken this step before sending her manifesto by email, it could have weakened its quality and crippled its eventual impact.
Overall, it increases our understanding of theories when we look at real life situations and see how those theories apply to them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJim Ridolfo conducted a case study to reveal the need for delivery research. In his study, Ridolfo discusses how delivery research has surfaced in recent years, but more people need to understand the importance this topic for text circulation. Ridoldo meets with a woman named Maggie Corso and together they reflect on a recent activist manifesto Corso had written and circulated. Corso was a practitioner of delivery, and Ridolfo discusses her rhetorical acts that led to the circulation of her manifesto. I believe this practitioner story to be important for many reasons.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the case study clearly describes the events, strategies and results of Corso’s experience. The quality of writing in this study shows value. Ridolfo’s text was easily understood and therefore, a more generalized public can interpret his findings and relate them to their own experiences.
Another valuable aspect of practitioner stories is their portrayal of context. Ridolfo’s case study shows how context is an influential part of delivery strategies. A composer alters his or her text based on the context of the delivery. “She [Corso] talks about the ways materials take on new meanings in different contexts” (123). When her situation involved meeting one on one with a male activist, Corso chose to hand-deliver her manifesto. Likewise, planning the time, place and media alters her deliverables and delivery strategy.
Lastly, another the practioner story is valuable because a researcher can not understand/study delivery strategies by observation. Ridolfo emphasizes how his interview with Corso was the only way to fully understand the topic of delivery and circulation. “For example, without using methods such as interviews, it would be difficult to discern a rhetor’s strategy of delivery by simply studying the movement and shifting of texts” (127). The results are more accurate because of the practitioner’s explanation.
This story teaches us a lot about the effects of delivery and the adaptions made to fit a certain situation. Furthermore, Ridolfo’s case study reveals that a composer writes a text for a purpose and then edits that text based on the audience, medium or environment.
Theoretical texts are great, but practitioner stories offer an easier-to-understand format and more relatable content. It is in more of a story format, with insight from the rhetor as well as his or her results. As Ridolfo states, "Practitioner stories can be useful for the study of rhetorical delivery" (127).
ReplyDeleteRidolfo might have chosen a story like Maggie's for a number of reasons, a few of which he included in the text. One was that "Her story is not so much about the utility of print for a specific instance of delivery but how the calculated use of print and digital media correspond to multiple discrete acts of delivery over a course of time: a strategy of rhetorical delivery" (124). Basically, each act of delivery has to be purposeful. The rhetor has to have a reason behind choosing that audience as the audience to receive the version of the text that they did in the way that they did. For example, she chose to send her manifesto to her women's group through listserv, as well as bring hard copies to them. She used their thoughts and ideas to strengthen her later deliveries. Then, she chose to meet males face to face and hand deliver her manifesto. She made it more personal and in turn urged them subtly to read it and give it some thought. Then, lastly, for a more widespread distribution, she emailed her manifesto to other universities. All of these examples have a specific audience and a specific method of delivery catering to them, but the same manifesto was shared in all three ways.
This real-life story proves to us (writers) that we can create a text for a specific audience, and still deliver it to others successfully.
Practitioner stories like the one in Ridolfo’s article are valuable in teaching us about writing and editing. These are effective because it is easier to learn from real life examples. “Ridolfo argues that practitioner knowledge of delivery is a unique perspective on the process of delivery” (125). In “Rhetorical Delivery as Strategy,” Ridolfo shares the story of Maggie Corser and the Manifesto. Corser’s story teaches us about different key concepts that are important for strategies of rhetorical delivery. She plans how to arrange the factors of a text’s delivery: time, place, and media (Ridolfo 123). Corser wrote the manifesto then went back two weeks later to revise it. She also brought it to a women’s group and got feedback from everyone there. For her second stage of delivery, she printed copies of her manifesto and talked to male activists individually about the document. She then emailed the manifesto to friends at other universities. This allowed for redistribution and circulation of the document. Overall, Corser took effective steps to reach her goals of delivery. People can learn from her decisions about writing and editing.
ReplyDeleteThese practitioner stories are valuable to us because they help us understand our delivery from a different perspective. It is similar to the value in receiving feedback on a poem or drawing you're creating and getting someone else's input. Also, I'd never thought of rhetorical situations are lines before, I'd always viewed them as points. As writers in the age of the internet I think practitioner stories are particularly useful in discovering how new texts impact audiences and learning how they disseminate.
ReplyDeleteI think what this article has taught me about writing and editing is to further anticipate how an audience reacts to my works and more importantly thinking of my audience as actionable because studying delivery in this article we find that when a text travels enough it is likely to change in new hands. With this in mind, we may be more inclined to edit more thoroughly and think from more perspectives than we may otherwise.
Practitioner stories provide us with real examples within the process of rhetorical delivery rather than presenting us with its concepts. In most situations, providing a case example is more valuable than giving theoretical ideas like how Porter and a few other writers we have studied this semester have done. Giving stories of a practitioner’s process in rhetorical delivery allows readers to understand the exact cause and effect of different methods.
ReplyDeleteThrough Maggie Corser’s manifesto, Ridolfo explored the different factors that can change delivery of a message. The largest factor in delivery was audience demographic and how confident the writer may have felt in receiving this specific audience’s feedback. In Corser’s case, she believed an all-women’s group would be more receptive, while a male group would be less so. This determined the way Corser initially circulated her manifesto through email or print and how she presented the message to each group in person. So for a lower risk situation (all women’s group), Corser spoke to them all at once while higher risk situations (all men’s group) warranted one-on-one meetings. It was helpful to read how each audience and situation were assessed to determine the best way of delivery. Ridolfo was able to explain how it is necessary for a writer to make choices that will adjust their message for different contexts. This strategic planning of delivery includes arranging the extrinsic factors of text, which are time, place and media.
Having a case example to illustrate strategic rhetorical delivery. It makes understanding the creation of these strategies much easier.
I believe Ridolfo's practitioner stories are valuable in a multitude of ways, but one of the most valuable things is how they allow us to see theories applied in the real world. Writing theories is a great way to educate an audience about how something ought to work, but it this often lacks real world examples. These examples are useful for observing how a particular theory operates, how it is used; it also serves to educate an audience on the delivery process (something Ridolfo discusses thoroughly in the paper). A prime example of a theory in which these practitioner stories brings to the real world is that of Porter's topoi. For example, the story of Maggie Corser covers such topoi as access/accessibility (when it discusses her target audience and their ability to access her text), as well as interaction and distribution/circulation (when it goes into detail about how she used email to distribute her manifesto in a more 'macro' manner, rather than face-to-face, or 'micro').
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the stories Ridolfo presents are valuable because they give the reader real life examples and situations. I think it is important to learn from other’s mistakes or accomplishments to create and remix ideas. There are problems that may arise in certain situations that can easily be resolved by having read practitioner stories. The audience of a practitioner story can then use the past to their advantage through out their own process. From this piece I was able to understand that the quality of a text must be reviewed before being distributed. Also, the form of distribution and having some sort of knowledge on the best ways to distribute a text are important as well.
ReplyDeleteThese stories teach us that writing and editing can always be improved and that it is not a simple or quick process but one that has many factors that need attention.
Ridolfo’s construction of a practitioner story challenges and expands our idea of rhetorical delivery by including the practitioners knowledge. It demonstrates the changing concept of rhetorical delivery in the digital age expanding from print to digital text, as well as, the movement of said text (Ridolfo 117). He continues to argue how important rhetorical delivery is in our era, utilizing word processing and desktop publishing as examples of our fluctuating methods of writing and how writers adapt to these new technologies. He takes considerations into play such as delivery, pedagogy, public space, as well as the law, race, identity, and the gendered body (Ridolfo 118). To Ridolfo, telling these stories of practice has the power to challenge notions of a singular rhetorical canon or tradition (Ridolfo 119).
ReplyDeleteIn writing and editing we also must take into consideration legal and corporeal risks as well as specific knowledge associated with activism that dictates where we are able to share our texts. To do so writers and editors are forced to pay more attention to aspects such as places, organizations, institutions, technologies, and people. With the expanding technologies today, strategies of delivery have become more and more difficult to recover as archives are not meant to last forever (Ridolfo 120). Depending on the stage of delivery, some courses of action when it comes to delivering the text are more time consuming and require particular strategic choices in media and mode of delivery to reach it's intended audience. These stages are influenced by an immediate and short-term goal or a macro and long-term goal, as well as the arrangement of media, time and delivery (Ridolfo 123). These rhetorical goals inform the writers means of delivery. Planning how to arrange factors such as time, place, and media, are key in the strategy for deliver.
Furthermore, according to Rude, the rhetorical situation must be understood as long term, comprehensive, and complex. The work or rhetoric is not complete when the speech is delivered or the document is published. Rhetorical choices are also influenced by time and audience, as the text can circulate further if the process of distribution is prolonged (Ridolfo 124). Thus, practitioner stories are extremely helpful in the study of rhetorical delivery by understanding the use of various forms of media for different audiences, as well as, the duration of time and altering acts of delivery (Ridolfo 127). Through his article, Ridolfo shows writers and editors how important it is to partake in delivery research in order to keep up with the movement of text with our ever-growing digital age.
I very much like how Ridolfo constructs a practitioner story. I think he himself is doing a wonderful job at rhetorical delivery by teaching us about rhetorical delivery through a narrative. I can’t speak for everyone, but it made it very easy to read and understand. Lots of times articles and essays about rhetoric become to analytical in phrasing and I lose my interest, but because he used a narrative, it felt like I was just reading about a person’s life while also learning how to perform good rhetorical delivery.
ReplyDeleteThis specific story told us that it is very possible to be creative in the way one sends out a message, and that how one delivers their message is equally as important to what the message is. I think Corser was very smart with how she delivered such an important message. When people just see something in a stack of texts, they will often glance over it or ignore it altogether, so she went as far as to set up individual meetings with the people who she wanted to hear the message the most, and then still had the text to give them so they completely understand where she is coming from. She showed that even though we have a bunch of different kinds of media, lots of times just speaking face to face with people is the best pairing with every media for effective rhetorical delivery.