Now Playing

I agree with Geoff that Forensic and Persuasive Rhetoric are different, although they still come from the same basic idea - the use of language to effectively communicate a point.  Both use logic to persuade.  And quite frankly, both can be used in Storytelling (from Trial/Courtroom stories, to Political speeches).

However, I think McKee's point is that Rhetoric is, as you say, only a weapon in the armory.  It is not the only way to get a Story, which is what corporate executives may need to re-learn.  (Hence the reference to the "tyranny" of Rhetoric).  Storytellers may always be trying to convince their audience that their world and characters are "real", but I would argue they aren't always using Rhetorical methods explicitly.  Am I wrong here?

When Bob mentions "rhetoric" I think he's speaking of Forensic Rhetoric which is a great deal different than Persuasive Rhetoric, which looks toward the future tense, whereas Forensic seeks to litigate a case. A small quibble, but I didn't want anyone to think that Rhetoric has no place in the armory, or else I might as well ditch my toga in my Storylogue Avator. /end rant.