An Interview with Arjun Kharel

I interviewed my close friend Mr. Arjun Kharel via email. He is a graduate student in MA in English at Kansas State University. We often read each other’s writings and edit and provide comments to each other. He has read several of my writings, both written in Nepal and here in Clemson; both published and unpublished. So, I think he can be a good source for me to know about my writing. However, as an international student, the writing patterns and the errors we make are very common. So, he may not easily notice the weaknesses of my writing.
Here, I am presenting only the questions I asked him and his responses to them.

Hem: Could you tell me what you know and feel about my writing?
Arjun: Whenever I read your writing, I feel that your knowledge on the subject matter is profound. I never see inadequacy in your knowledge of the subject you are writing. Your writing is always highly focused, and the main claim is always supported by sub-claims, and that helps understand your point. Another quality of your writing is its originality. Besides, you can brilliantly associate the seemingly disparate things. In your recent writing "The Gaze" I liked the way you associated the idea of 'gaze' in visual communication to Said's idea of Western (mis)representation of East.

Hem: What are the strong and weak aspects of my writing?
Arjun: The strong aspects of you writing- they are highly focused, usually researched, and well-developed. I don't see any major problem in your writing. The only problem, if I have to say, is that sometimes your sentences are too long for common readers to understand. And one of your papers, as I dimly recall, may be on Technical Communication, had some jargons of literary theories and I found a bit hard to grasp in some places.

Hem: How do you rate my writing in terms of language proficiency and writing skills? You can use the rating scale of 1 to 5.
Arjun: Your writing is just perfect, and deserves 5. I never see any lack in language proficiency and writing skills.

Hem: Does subject matter affect my writing?
Arjun: I have never observed that. In Nepal you used to write on literary topics, but I was just surprised to see your writing on technical communication equally brilliant or even better.

Hem: What features do you think distinguishes my writing from that of the natives (Eng as first language users)?
Arjun: I actually don't know. But I think your writing is always formal whether it is in a blog or an academic writing. I have often seen the native speakers writing informally in informal places. However, I don't see it as a problem for non-native speakers.

Hem: At the end, please tell me what more you know or feel about my writing.
Arjun: Overall, you writing is just perfect. I wish I could see your writing soon in journals.

Covino and Jolliffe, "What Is Rhetoric?"

Covino and Jolliffe offer a comprehensive definition of rhetoric and identify major elements of it. They discard a narrow definition of rhetoric that dismisses the value of it and reduces it to an external ornamentation. “Rhetoric,” in their terms, “is a primarily verbal, situationally contingent, epistemic art that is both philosophical and practical and gives rise to potentially active texts” (5). There are several resonances of Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation” and Scott’s “Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” in their definition. However, as they themselves admit, this definition is also equally contestable. For instance, I would prefer to say that “rhetoric has been primarily a verbal art” rather than “rhetoric is a primarily verbal art.” With the rise of visual media and technology, there has been an increasing growth of the use of rhetorical strategies in visual culture and this is having a greater effect in the life of the people than in the past. I hope we will explore this dimension of rhetoric in the latter part of the semester.
As an introductory essay on rhetoric, the writers have been able to present an well informed (of new developments in the field) and largely uncontrovertible definition along with the basic elements and notions about it. Their discussion of the elements like rhetorical situation, audience and the canons of rhetoric provides us a window to the field of rhetoric. The beauty of the essay is the writers’ ability to offer a comprehensive definition and discussion of the highly contested field with simplicity, but without dismissing the complexities and complications of the field.

Welcome to my blog.