As I read Aristotle On Rhetoric with a trace on audience in mind, one distinction became increasingly clear to me: that between the audience of the written word and of the spoken.
As Aristotle point out, "Character is, so to speak, the controlling factor in persuasion" (38). When we watch a speech being given, we have a tendency to agree with the speaker more if they, for instance, have a commanding presence, a controlled voice, an attractive and professional appearance. The psychological "halo effect"- associating good looks with general smarts and competency- applies here tenfold. When simply reading the written word, however, there are none of these factors affecting our persuasion (or lack thereof). True, such aspects as stylistic flair or vocabulary might affect our judgment; but for the most part, it's simply the argument and us, the audience, without appearances clouding our judgment.
As I contemplated this, however, I reached a (somewhat unrelated, somewhat picky) point of confusion: why are there pictures of authors on book jackets? Do we rely so heavily on images in our media-and-ad-focused culture that, no matter how "good" (in this case, persuasive) a piece of writing is- a book, a column, whatever- we want a face to put to the logos?
Of course a simple image would not affect the audience's interpretation of a piece so much as an entire presentation complete with speech and presence. But it is still powerful enough, I think, to affect our interpretation slightly. I know (hope) I'm not the only one who's read a great book and then felt somehow betrayed when the image on the jacket flap doesn't fit the image I've created for the author in my mind.
And I wonder- if Aristotle's image had been tucked into the last pages on On Rhetoric, would I have liked it more or less? Or would I have cared at all?
Reading your post, Blair, I'm reminded of the first televised presidential debate, between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Intellectually and content-wise, historians say that Nixon was the more persuasive and convincing speaker, but in terms of appearance, persona and charisma, Kennedy won the debate because he was more camera-friendly.
ReplyDeleteIt's an unfair biological advantage: those who are "prettier" or naturally more charismatic in their social affectations have a much easier time getting what they want or persuading others to share their point of view. From a personal standpoint, I take great pride in my writing abilities, but put me in front of a microphone and an audience and I freeze.
In regards to your comments regarding book covers and photographs of authors, I actually think that including photos of authors shatters the preconception that "good" writing comes from a "good-looking" person. When Walt Whitman first published "Leaves of Grass", he included a pen-and-ink drawing of himself as a young man on the first page. Granted, "Song of Myself" is an occasionally sexually-explicit poem and there may have been some innuendo behind including a picture of himself, but to do so gives the reader an inclination of the personality behind the work. Another example would be to look at a portrait of Mozart. (I'm a classical music buff so I figured this would be an appropriate parallel to draw.) His music is supremely refined, masterful and beautiful in the extreme, yet looking at his face tells a different story. Most portraits of him include his protuberant, bright eyes, his childish face and his overall weak physical stature. Yet behind this slight appearance a creative, inventive and imaginative mind teemed with ideas and musical creations. It's a life lesson: appearances can be and are deceptive.