Politics: Opportune moments & catered words

Just as several fellow classmates found a correlation between this week’s readings and the institution of politics, so too did I. Specifically, I thought John Poulakos’ “Toward a Specific Definition of Rhetoric,” and Edward Schiappa’s “Neo-Sophistic Rhetorical Criticism or the Historical Reconstruction of Sophistic Doctrines,” were highly relevant to the examples below, as the essays focused on the presence of the audience, the rhetors’ catered speech for that audience, and perhaps even the “linguistic craftsmen,” (Schiappa, 203) at particular, or “opportune” time.

Take for example the following two clips of President Barack Obama: 

The first video documents Obama’s sophisticated address to the union regarding race and politics; the second documents his brief speech to a crowd in Louisville, Kentucky. Although these two speeches vary in their allotted time, they both, however, “take into account and [are] guided by the temporality of the situation in which [they] occur[s]” (Poulakos, 39). In the first video, Obama speaks to a broad and incredibly diverse audience as he delivers an address via national television. In the second video, his audience is narrowed, targeted.

Before even discussing the content of the included videos, Poulakos’ following words ring true: “Some of the factors contributing to one’s sense of the timely and the appropriate are one’s discretionary powers, the cultural norms in which he participates, his reading of the situation he wants to address, his image of his audience, and his prediction of the potential effects of his words on his listeners” (Poulakos 42). In his differing speeches, his opportune moments, Obama craftily delivers his prepared speeches to appeal to his current audience.

Aside from the overall tone and aura of the speeches, the most profound difference is that related to linguistics, a field Schiappa touches on in his essay. When viewing the two videos, note the absence (or presence) of –ing suffixes in Obama’s speech. In the first speech, Obama uses 88 of these –ing suffixes and drops his ‘g’ (e.g., saying talkin’ rather than talking) in only two instances; in the second speech, he includes his ‘g’ in only two of the 15 instances.

Why this drastic change in presentation and tone? What is rhetoric’s role in these two prepared speeches? How are these roles impacting the stance of each audience? Let’s discuss.

Throughout the first speech, Obama speaks clearly and crisply. He articulates his words and provides listeners with an easy-to-follow speech. I find it particularly interesting that in the only two instances during which Obama drops his ‘g,’ he does so with the same word, “morning.” I propose that Obama is g-dropping within these two instances because of what he is discussing. At this point, Obama is twenty minutes into his speech and has had substantial time to establish a sense of rapport or distinguishable highness to him; thus, on one hand, he may feel acquainted with his audience, and he may have purposefully dropped his ‘g’ in hopes of better capturing the words (and their story) and better relating to the audience. On the other hand, due to its context, Obama may have unconsciously dropped his ‘g’ solely due to the topic he is discussing. Due to his background—which he establishes within the beginning of his speech—Obama may be unconsciously g-dropping as he gets into the rhythm of his text. But why this word, why this “opportune moment?”

In either or both of the two cases, Obama’s g-dropping can either make or break his speech. It can 1) shed some light on who he is, what he stands for, etc. and be a breath of fresh air for some listeners, as they get a piece of Obama’s culture, or it can 2) detract from his overall, well-written, well-executed, highly articulated speech. It is also important to note the audience’s reaction at this moment in his speech; they are in a roar of claps and are expressing enthusiasm and great support for Obama and his words. Perhaps these chants reflect the sophisitic “’definition’” of rhetoric that Poulakos puts forth in his work (and that is reiterated in Schiappa’s): “’Rhetoric is the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible’” (Schiappa 201). Perhaps the audience unconsciously took note of the g-dropping too, and showed their reaction through claps and shouts. Or, maybe they noticed Obama’s shift in articulation and pronunciation, and for that, they expressed enthusiasm. If the audience saw a bit of Obama’s “roots” shining through his speech, this could have impacted their feelings in regards to the speech as a whole. They, the audience that is, could also be taking advantage of this opportune moment.

Let’s move to the second speech: The most interesting idea I would like to present is in reference to the content of the speech and the location in which it was read. This speech mentions nothing of racism, as the first did, and instead focuses on issues related to war, poverty, and money. I found it interesting that Obama chose to address this particular audience (individuals in Louisville, Kentucky, and as a whole, the state, which would likely vote for the other party) with this particular speech. Within this speech, Obama avoided references to racism and/or religion—the main topics found within the first speech. Did he find these topics irrelevant to this targeted audience, or did he fear their mentioning would be detrimental (and/or not as effective) to his speech? In sum, Obama is truly describing everyday situations of which many Americans have experienced or witnessed during their lives. So, perhaps though his g-dropping, Obama hopes to make known he is still an average American with the same hopes and dreams as its other patriots, and he is well aware of its most common issues.

These examples adhere to Poulakos’ opening words on rhetoric. He writes, “The definition I wish to advance is: Rhetoric is the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible… this definition intimates that rhetoric is an artistic undertaking which concerns itself with the how, the when, and the what of expression and understands the why of purpose” (Poulakos 36). Is this not the tactic with which Obama delivers his two speeches?

Although the two speeches differ in their formality, content, and length of time, they both share the element of approaching a specific targeted audience and capturing the power of the opportune moment. We end with this: “What is said, then, must be both appropriate to time, or timely, and appropriate to the audience and the occasion” (Poulakos 42).

David Cross, Sophist?

David Cross, in an open letter to Larry the Cable Guy, aptly titled, "An Open letter to Larry the Cable Guy" touches on quite a few of the Sophist ideals in this week's readings, most notably, the "Dissoi Logoi" and John Poulakos's "Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric".

"An Open Letter to Larry the Cable Guy", from Cross's website, and most recently Cross's 2009 book "I Drink for a Reason", is a direct response to "Larry's" (or is it "Mr. Cable Guy's"?) verbal assault on Cross and "the P.C. Left" in an interview from Rolling Stone. While not as eloquent as some of the more classical Sophists, the open letter embodies many elements of  "On the Seemly and Shameful", from "Dissoi Logoi", as well as the concepts of kairos (timeliness), to prepon (the appropriate), the notions of rhetoric as art, style and personal expression from Poulakos's essay.

An Open Letter to Larry the Cable Guy, Part 1

An Open Letter to Larry the Cable Guy, Part 2

In this explicit retort, Cross embraces the notion that some things are both seemly and shameful (Dissoi Logoi, 49). Cross, on several occasions, alleges that Larry and his fan base embrace the anti-intellectual ethos that seems to have permeated the national conscience at the onset of the 21st century. While Cross and his fan base may regard this as shameful and their "superior intellect" as seemly, it could be argued that his attack on what he deems the "lowest common denominator" as an act is equally shameful. Cross further goes on to debase Larry, by insulting his seemingly ignorant world view, his elementary style of humor, and his perceived bigotry as also shameful. This act of verbal assault, at least in my mind, is both seemly and shameful. It is seemly to me, because I think Cross "hits the nail on the head", and shameful because, well, he hits the nail on the head. It is shameful that in an age of information, access to education, high literacy rates, etc., that someone such as Larry the Cable Guy can exploit the perceived ignorance of a portion of his fan base's unfounded fears of Islam ([sic] "Ya wanna pray to Allah then drag yer flea infested ass over to where they pray to Allah at!” ),  homophobia (“Madder than a queer with lock jaw on Valentines Day.”), and masquerading bigotry under the banner of "telling it like it is". 

Cross, according to the "Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric", appeals to the rhetorical in that he speaks (and writes) with a sense of urgency, which is what compels a rhetor to speak (Poulakos, 39).  The timeliness (kairos) of his rebuttal was only hindered by the processes of research, writing, and publication. 

Comedy, even when it takes form of scathing satire, as this letter does, is considered an artform. It is David Cross's primary artform, the one that catapulted him to fame, or infamy, depending on your personal view of him. While there are some truths contained within the letter (the revealing of Larry the Cable Guy's real name, a brief overview of his formative years, his geographical location during these years, etc.) the overall piece, when viewed as art, "does not admit criteria appropriate to strictly epistemological or axiological matters (Poulakos, 37).  There is a style in which the letter is composed, that echoes Cross's other comedic works, in that there is an observation of a societal ill or social flaw that warrants satire. This homogeny can be described as adhering to Poulakos's hypothesis of rhetoric as style and personal expression.

As  appropriateness ( to prepon) is concerned, there lies an interesting argument. While some may argue that Cross's use of profane language and quasi-blasphemous imagery is inappropriate, the style in which the comedic act is executed is appropriate to preserve the continuity of his body of work. Given David Cross's reputation as an atheist, and what some consider a "pseudo-intellectual", then the appropriate  factor still applies.

While the eloquence of David Cross's rhetorical style is far less polished than primordial rhetoricians, it still adheres to some scholarly justifications as to what rhetoric is.

Jack Skellington: The Sophist of Halloweentown

Jack Skellington in A Nightmare Before Christmas utilizes many aspects of rhetoric throughout the film. In one particular scene, his character convinces his community, Halloweentown, to celebrate the holiday of Christmas after he has accidentally journeyed through Christmas Town. As a prominent member of his society, Jack is able to hold a town meeting and speak to his fellow citizens in a way that persuades them to think as he does. He adheres to the form of rhetoric that John Poulakos attributes to the Sophists in his essay, “Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric,” by incorporating the ideas of kairos, to prepon and to dynaton within his speech.

Jack speaks at the opportune moment concerning Christmas. Halloween has recently come and gone, and his town is in need of some excitement. Jack himself is battling ennui; he grows tired of the same preparations for the same holiday with the same results. He needs more in life, and he believes his town needs more as well. Poulakos asserts that speech “must take into account and be guided by the temporality of the situation in which it occurs” (39). Jack’s speech takes time into account because there are less than two months to prepare for Christmas. He speaks (rather, he sings) with urgency; he jumps right into explaining this new concept to his audience: “There were objects so peculiar, they were not to be believed / All around, things to tantalize my brain” (The Nightmare Before Christmas). Furthermore, Poulakos explains that Gorgias felt that it is unnecessary for someone to speak about a topic that has been talked about many times previously. Jack’s audience has never heard of Christmas. He brings an entirely new subject to his world. The audience is simultaneously intrigued and confused; it relies solely upon Jack’s account of this novel idea.

Rhetoric is concerned with the idea of to prepon, or the appropriate. Poulakos claims the following:

When appropriate, speech is perfectly compatible with the audience and the occasion it 

affirms and simultaneously seeks to alter. An appropriate expression reveals the rhetor’s 

rhetorical readiness and evokes the audience’s gratitude; conversely, an inappropriate 

expression indicates a misreading on the rhetor’s part and a mismeeting between rhetor 

and audience. (41)

Jack realizes quickly that his speech is inappropriate to his audience. Listeners constantly interrupt him in order to understand his examples of Christmas. As he tries to explain the concept of a present, various audience members ask what kinds of horrible things are put inside the present’s box. He discoveries that these ideas thrill no one in the audience, aside from Sally. To get the audience on his side, Jack changes his approach; at the end of his speech, he feeds into the audience’s need to scare people and its desire for horror. While at first there is a mismeeting between Jack and his listeners, now the audience feels gratitude toward Jack and an excitement to create its own Christmas.

Lastly, Jack employs the concept of to dynaton, the possible. As he speaks, all Halloweentown has ever known is the holiday of Halloween. That is the town’s reality. Jack has seen another reality, one that holds true to the citizens of Christmas Town. He introduces this new concept to his town, calling it “a most improbable dream” (The Nightmare Before Christmas). He makes this new way of living sound more incredible and delightful than Halloweentown’s current situation. 

While it all sounds so wonderful, Jack’s audience does not quite grasp his intentions because it needs time to process this new reality. Protagoras explains in Truth or Refutations that “all appearances and opinions are true and that truth is a relative matter because a man’s every perception or opinion immediately exists in relation to him” (18). Now that Jack has broken through his town’s version of reality into a new form of reality, he wants to share it with his citizens. However, since they have not seen or experienced this alternative world of Christmas Town, they must morph Jack’s ideas into something more relatable to what they perceive as real. Ultimately, this lack of understanding causes Jack to fail in his attempt to bring a successful Christmas to his town.

“The Nightmare Before Christmas - Town Meeting.” YouTube. 25 Oct. 2008. 2 Sept. 2012. 
          Web.

Poulakos, John. "Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric." Philosophy and Rhetoric 16.1 
          (1983): 35-48.

Protagoras. Truth or Refutations. The Older Sophists. Ed. Rosamond Kent Sprague. 
          Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2001. 18.

Toward a Kinder View of Sophists

This week readings tend to cast sophists in a negative light; there is the exception of John Poulakos’ “Toward a Sophist Definition of Rhetoric.” He, along with others such as Isocrates tend to cast sophists in a general sense, when, as Edward Schiappa argues, should be studied individually because generalizations can be made. In a sense, everyone seems to be ganging up on the sophists and lumping them into one category. Is this view of sophists fair? By no means is it so, however, I believe it is a case we often see in democratic societies. An influential person, with the means persuade an entire group lobby against a specific smaller group through the use of generalizations that do not necessarily apply to each individual within said smaller group.

History has seen this play out many times, but I will pull from a more recent example to illustrate my point. During the various waves of feminism, feminists have been labeled as man haters, bra burners, and lesbians. They have portrayed as women who want to dominate men and essentially reverse roles (Gerd Brantenberg addresses this issue and how it wouldn’t promote inequality in the novel Egalia’s Daughters: A Satire of the Sexes).  Feminists view the world differently and they see the inequality that exists between gender. Their view didn’t just happen organically. It came by questioning the status quo and challenging the reason behind it. In a sense, I think they were doing rhetoric. In many cases, when a smaller group begins to question the dominate group or even suggests there is a different way or doing things, they are usually met with a backlash. Like the Sophists, feminists were lumped together and paired with negative ideas and images. However, you cannot lump all feminists together.

Feminism have different views on gender equality and how to arrive there. The various camps have, what some people believe, caused the division in feminism that makes it difficult for the third wave to come together as decisively as the first or second wave. The first and second dealt with concrete issues such as voting and equality in the work place while the third wave has to deal with what I consider to be the most difficult: cultural gender inequality. There is nothing tangible to fight and its much harder to change someone’s way of thinking. Feminism today includes everything from Ms.Magazine to the infamous Pussyriot in Russian.

We cannot necessarily claim that all feminism is the same, however, we might perhaps come to the conclusion that modern feminists wants gender equality. First wave feminists (also associated with the suffrage movement) were interested in getting the right to vote. This didn’t always apply to all women, many of them thought this included only white women. Nevertheless, these women form the basis for early feminist ideals. Schiappa makes a similar argument in his article, “Neo-Sophistic Rhetorical Criticism.” He writes, “Aside form absent evidence and explanation to connect the Older Sophists’ fragments and texts to rhetorike, there are prima facie grounds for considering suspect any claims about sophistic theorizing about rhetoric.” While Schiappa recognizes that term rhetoric doesn’t appear in Sophist texts, that doesn’t mean they weren’t practicing it. Similarly, first wave feminists weren’t necessarily using the term or defining their movement in such a way. The idea of first wave was a term coined much later in the 20^th century, after the first wave took place. Later on Schiappa writes, “Even without the signifier (rhetorike), the signified (practice of rhetoric) existed and can be meaningfully discussed today.”

So, to address my central concern:  Is the view of sophists perpetrated throughout history fair? Inherently it is not. When any group is not in control of writing for themselves, then naturally, assumptions will be made. And when those assumptions are done by an outsider, they are in control of how the earlier group is viewed, not by the group members themselves. 


--Kiera P.

"Election" and the Definition of Rhetoric

                The reading by John Poulakos on the sophistic definition of rhetoric, explained a rhetorical theory that I believe is well represented in the student speeches from the movie “Election.” Originally, when I watched the movie, I recognized the good and bad speeches. But after reading John Poulakos’s article, it helped me realize why they were either a success or a failure. Edward Schiappa explains in his article that Poulakos fails to give an accurate, historical reconstructed view of a generalized sophistic definition.  Poulakos does, however, utilize sophistic thinking in order to create a modern theory of rhetoric that I believe is important and prevalent today.

                The clip below is from the movie Election, in which Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon), Paul Metzler (Chris Klein), and Tammy Metzler (Jessica Campbell) run for Study Body President. Tracy and Paul give their speeches first but both fail to arouse the audience. Tammy, on the other hand, receives overwhelming support from the student body at the end of her speech even though she was booed at the beginning. Poulakos’s sophistic definition helps explain why Tracy and Paul fail while Tammy succeeds. Poulakos’s defines rhetoric as “the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible.”  (36) The four elements within this definition that embody the speeches are: style, timeliness, appropriateness, and the possible.

Poulakos quotes Aristotle to emphasize the importance of style – “it is not sufficient to know what one ought to say, but it is necessary also to know how one ought to say it.” (37) All three candidates give well thought out speeches, but each has a distinct style attached to it. Tracy’s speech is formal and detached, and Paul’s speech, which literally very good, is read directly from his note cards with no pauses or emphasis. Poulakos states that it is the speaker’s style which illustrates their personality. Audiences want to know who their speaker is, and their style is often how that is accomplished. Paul is revered by the students but is actually revealed to be very boring and bland through the delivery of his speech. He completely loses his audience because there is no style, no personality. Tammy’s speech is bold, direct, and controversial. Her attitude shines through her speech and the audience is hooked by it. Style (or lack of it) can determine the success of a speech because words alone can’t sway an audience; the speaker needs to show personality as well.

Poulakos also emphasizes timeliness or, kairos, as an important element in rhetoric. What is said must be said at the right moment in order for it to be persuasive. Obviously all three candidates are asked to speak because they are trying to persuade the students to vote for them. But only Tammy proves to have the courage to speak in the moment without any prepared speeches. Gorgias is stated to have believed that a true speaker should have no reference materials and that the speech should arise from the moment. Tracy and Paul both hold note-cards, proving to the audience that their speeches are prefabricated and detached. Tammy speaks last and uses this to her advantage. She uses the power of that moment in time to arouse and persuade her audience.

Appropriateness or to prepon is another element that must be considered. Poulakos cites Gorgias as emphasizing the importance of the audience in crafting one’s speech. Different audiences should illicit different speeches. If the speech is appropriate, it “is perfectly compatible with the audience and the occasion it affirms…and evokes the audience’s gratitude.” (41) Tracy’s speech is too formal and structured. She also reveals embarrassing facts about audience members, which further detaches her from her listeners. This shows that she doesn’t understand the norms that dictate her peers. Tammy’s speech however, relates directly to the audience. She realizes that her audience doesn’t care who wins or loses and states that she understands their true concern – having to sit through these assemblies. The audience grants her a standing ovation at the conclusion of her speech because she addressed their true concerns.

The last element Poulakos explains is the possible – that man desires to be in another place and another time. All three candidates try to use the element of the possible in their speeches. They recognize that people are preoccupied with what could be and the candidates use this fascination to tell them what their future could hold. Each of them even go so far as telling them how to achieve this future – to vote for them. But Tracy and Paul seem to only tell them what they have already heard before. Gorgias affirms this by stating, “to tell the knowing what they know has credibility but brings no delight.” (44) What Tammy does however, is present the audience with a new possibility, one that has not previously been exposed to them before. This new, unperceived future, would bring them more joy than the others presented and they cheer Tammy for her words. The elements within Poulakos’s definition, though perhaps not historically accurate, are relevant within a modern interpretation of rhetorical theory demonstrated through the speeches of Tracy, Paul and Tammy.

(The clip below is only of Tammy’s speech, I couldn’t find one that includes all three. But I have the DVD and will bring it to class in case it wants to be shown.) 

Existence and Rhetoric in a Beautiful Mind

A Beautiful Mind is the story of John Nash, a brilliant mathematician who suffered from schizophrenia. While I don't doubt that a fair number of connections can be made between this movie and the readings of this week's readings [Protagoras' Truth or Refutations, Gorgias' Encomium of Helen, Gorgias' On the Nonexistent, Anonymous' The Dissoi Logoi, Isocrates' Against the Sophists, John Poulakos' “Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric,” and Edward Schippa's “Neo-Sophistic Rhetorical Criticism or the Reconstruction of Sophistic Doctrines?”], my ability to draw these connections is limited by what little I remember of seeing only part of this movie years ago and by the 11 clips of the movie I found on Youtube.  (Sadly I do not have Netflix :P )

     My initial choice of this movie may have been a little more misguided in that I was focused on what Gorgias was saying about existence in On the Nonexistent instead of what this piece was teaching about rhetoric.  However, I think the connection does apply to rhetoric as Nash had to rhetorically reason with himself as well as others in order to keep his belief in the real existence of his hallucinations.  Now, I realize that at first this seems like a stupid thought because a schizophrenic is going to see things that he or she thinks is real without having to reason for it, BUT when people outside of the vision tell the schizophrenic that what he or she sees isn't real, they have to figure out why the person outside of the vision can't see what the schizophrenic.  Consider the following.  Closer to the end of the movie, after Nash has a relapse, Nash nearly drowns his son because he believes that "Charles" is watching the baby.  When his wife insists that Charles isn't there, Nash insists that he is there and explains that she just can't see him because Charles was injected with a cloaking serum that Nash could see through because of a tag the military had placed in Nash some time earlier in the movie.  

      To any of us, Nash's reason would sound like a poor argument as it's prepon and dynaton were inadequate (Poulakos), but when you measure all of the things Nash experienced at the hands of hallucinations against the notion that Nash's hallucinations are in fact a figment of his imagination, this seems a valid explanation.  As Protagoras says "of all things the measure is man, of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not."  If Gorgias can absolve Helen of Troy from all probable blame for the Trojan war, the human mind can reason it's way out of just about anything--just about.  And actually--not to play on my own words but--soon after Nash nearly drowns his son, a piece of his sane logic reasons its way out of the delusion that his hallucinations were real.  Though who knows if we exist in reality?

     Ahem. Back to connections.  There are two other connections I can make to A Beautiful Mind and our readings.  They are considerably minor connections, and have little to do with rhetoric, but they are connections nonetheless.  The first is Nash's hatred for classrooms and teachers mimics the distaste Isocrates has towards Sophists.  The other connection is that Nash reexamines Adam Smith's "Governing Dynamics" (see clip), just as Schippa reexamines Poulakos' supposed definition of rhetoric by the Sophists.



-Michelle Tuten

A "modern" teacher of rhetoric

While reading Against the Sophists by Isocrates and John Poulakos’ Toward a Sophistic Definition I was struck by the condemnation of the Sophists. I likened Isocrates’ tirade about the immoral Sophists teaching men in the public eye the act of rhetoric  to the movie, The King’s Speech (2010). Colin Firth plays the Duke of York who must ascend to the throne as King George VI of England. However, he has a terrible stutter which does not allow him to address the public as has become popular with the growing popularity of radio and the eminent threat of war with Germany (clip 1:09). 

The changing of the ‘moment’ has caused the exigency needed to push the Duke to repair his speech pattern for the public eye, “The way a thing is said does affect its intelligibility.” (Aristotle) The importance of the Duke learning to speak correctly  is very similar to the explanation of rhetoric by John Poulakos, “rhetoric is the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate…” (36)  In the film, the Duke says “they will call me Mad King George, the stammerer,”  with which he likens himself to the demented described the anonymous author in Dissoi Logoi,”only the wise say them at the right moment and the demented at moments when it is not proper.”  (53)

 He has had all methods of teachers which do not teach him to lose his stutter. This is similar to Isocrates in Against the Sophists claiming, “the student must not only have the requisite aptitude but he must learn the different kinds of discourse and practice himself in their use; and the teacher, for his part, must so expound the principles of the art with the utmost possible exactness as to leave out nothing that can be taught, and, for the rest, he must in himself set such an example of oratory that the students who have taken form under his instruction and are able to pattern after him will from the outset, show their speaking a degree of grace and charm which is not found in others.” (74)  In the clip, at :30 the Duke is receiving commonly condoned speech therapy. In this, the speech therapists are like Isocrates’ interpretation of the Sophists- “I observe these men setting themselves up as instructors of youth who cannot see that they are applying the analogy of an art with hard and fast rules to a creative process.”(73) Through my interpretation Geoffrey Rush’s character, Lionel Logue, is the ‘master rhetorician’ described by Poulakos in his instruction to the future king. “What is said must be said somehow and that is how is a matter of the speaker’s choice, then style betrays the speaker’s unique grasp of language and becomes the peculiar expression of his personality.” (38) (Clip 1:30)

Nearly every portion of the movie can be drawn to the arguments in favor and against the Sophists' practices of rhetoric. By the end of the movie the King’s stutter has not been resolved entirely but he has learned the art of speech.  Isocrates may argue, “it cannot fully fashion men who are without natural aptitude into good debaters or writers, although it is capable of leading the on to self-improvement and to a greater degree of intelligence on many subjects.”  (74) or perhaps Lionel has succeeded in transforming an undiscovered, stuttering man into a master orator who possessed the  ‘requisite aptitude’ for speech but had never had a teacher with enough skill to teach him.