Yamneg Liu’s title literally applied to their own essay. As
it turns out, “nothing can be accomplished” when you write like you, Liu.
I was
utterly baffled by this author (and visibly annoyed as well). The intense use of
abstract, undefined, and overloaded sentences made this an exercise in
drudgery. I would like to point out all the “freedoms” Liu takes in this essay
(since Liu was so busy pointing out everyone else’s mistakes in their
arguments).
First, there is this inexplicable move that Liu makes at the
bottom of 148 and onto the top of 149. Liu directly addresses the reader (which
happens in the very first sentence of the essay, but then disappears for a
page): “This critique impresses us with
a number of notable features. It talks about what we now call enabling principles of a symbolic action… with an easy
familiarity. The quasi-logical approach it adopts is so sophisticated that it
reminds us of, for example, the famous
‘Pascal’s Wager’” (148-49 emphasis added). Strangely, I did not notice another
instance of this technique surfacing anywhere
else in the essay. So why address your reader in such manner, not to
mention the name drop of “Pascal’s Wager” (I guess I’m supposed to know what
that means?). Well I didn’t, so I looked it up.
Pascal’s Wager is the philosophical idea presented in the 17th
century that people either wagered that god existed or did not exist, and it
was better to wager that God did exist and only lose a small amount of luxuries
on Earth for a potential infinity of luxuries in the afterlife or risk an
eternity in hell. You can read more about it here.
After this moment, the essay really started falling apart
for me. Liu uses Chinese words without defining them, only to later define them
like yan. Or we simply do not get a
definition such as telos on 149. Yan is not discussed for five pages
after its definition on page 150, and when it shows back up on the radar, Liu
does not remind the reader what it means (I had forgotten by that time only to
find it littered across the page). And as if Liu wanted to cement this
estranged way of ciphering words, the end of the essay is paragraph after
paragraph of different definitions of Chinese words.
Don’t get me wrong,
there were interesting things in this essay, but Liu’s writing style speaks to
a highly specialized group of people… with Ph.Ds….That are crazy about
rhetoric. In that sense Liu is really not even speaking to us.
I totally agree with this Levi. I was totally confused about this until we talked in class. Once we looked at specific sentences and pieces that held important, worthy information, I was not at all into anything that Liu had to say. If this would have been written like any of the other, much more clear, essays we have read, then I think we all would have gotten a lot more out of it. I do think that Liu's idea that studying Chinese rhetoric in its own terms doesn't lend to the cross-cultural comparison its suited for is worth keeping in mind.
ReplyDeleteYour mention of 'overloaded sentences' is right on. I have difficulties discussing rhetoric already, I don't need a bunch of fluffed up, nearly contradictory wordage to confuse me even more. I agree that Liu appeared to be writing to a specific set of people, and apparently we students are not included in that set.
ReplyDeleteThis whole point of rhetoric being cross-cultural and relevant rather falls on its face if you can't even keep the interest of a college class room. I think this is the issue I've had with Rhetoric in general - EVERYONE uses it, yet it has been shuttled off to these elitist corners to be used by people who think they have the ultimate rights to it. Maybe I'm being a tad bitter. But, I do think that people over complicate rhetoric all the time, and Liu certainly did in this piece. As you pointed out, there are nuggets of good info in the essay, but they're buried under a load of pointlessness.