"Genesis" Poetic Metaphor" seemed to create an unnecessary dichotomy regarding metaphor creation. I would argue that metaphors are not always created for the reader, and nor are they always created in a more unconscious moment by the writer. The very act of metaphor creation cannot be easily contemplated. When I try to think of how I produce metaphors, my mind goes fuzzy. The process is not one we often contemplate. When I want my reader to understand a certain point (usually when speaking to a young child, or when presenting complex material to any audience), I consciously think about a metaphor that will be most suitable. Sometimes, though, as I'm writing, metaphors simply come to mind. They seem appropriate upon introspection, but I cannot recall consciously creating them. When I write fiction, I do hope my metaphors tend to "produce a pleasant titillation of the reader's fantasy (38)," but I do not necessarily create the metaphors FOR the reader. Is there an artificial origin to metaphor? It is unlikely that the exact nanosecond in which a metaphor is created can be captured, let alone studied. Therefore, speculating about metaphors is speculation at best. While this piece does provide an intelligent psychological, theoretic basis, discovering human motivation is not an exact science. If we think too much about metaphors, they lose their allure. They are "a real organism, living, growing and dying (44), " and that's only natural, as they come from the human mind.
Burke, in "Four Master Tropes," also questions how we produce a certain state in an observer. He says "the aim of such embodiment is to produce in the observer a correspopnding state of consciousness...(509)." This quote reminds me of art. When we paint, for example, do we intend to create a certain reaction in the viewer, or do we simply follow our inspiration in blind moments of passion (similar to the almost instantaneous creation of a metaphor)?

I would like to focus on Kinneavy and Gunn Allen. I found Kinneavy's argument convincing, and his writing style is accessible. He's employed kairos well! It does seem that kairos is often overlooked, as he mentions. Is it perhaps because "the right or opportune time to do something, or right measure in doing something" (221) is simply obvious? I certainly think we need to keep audience awareness in mind with all rhetoric, though I don't mean to suggest kairos is only audience awareness.
When Kinneavy begins to discuss the college composition scene, he becomes more concrete, advocating for a program with "ethical, epistemological, rhetorical, aesthetic and political dimensions" (231)." I can see crafting a syllabus where every few week another category serves as the theme, but creating such a program would likely be time consuming and might even conflict with current writing goals. Kinneavy doesn't offer enough examples of how to actually implement the program, either.
There is a link between Kairos and Gun Allen's notion that feminism is "rooted in the notion of appropriateness" (206). Being appropriate leads to dignity, and I would add that being appropriate is an intelligent use of kairos. Gun Allen, however, loses some credibility with me when I learn she underwent hypnosis to uncover UFO memories. Her life is fascinating, though deeply disturbing in many ways. She sounds like an unhappy individual (on many days, at least) lamenting the disappearance and assimilation on Indians. Yet, she seem to be resisting a very hard truth---that there has been and will continue to be the disappearance and assimilation of Indians. She seems to draw a distinct separation between white people and Indians, which I believe further complicates her ideas. Would greater unity and understanding (as bell hooks might argue for blacks and white, males and females) be more appropriate?

The arguments surrounding the rhetorical situation and its supposed myth do not seem to be as pressing or meaningful as Moutford's issues raised in "On Gender and Rhetorical Space." Bitzner argues that the situation is the source of rhetorical activity, while Vatz claims that rhetoric controls the situational response. Consigny offers an intelligent blending of the two theories by recognizing that the situation is not determinate nor determining, and that there are real constraints on the rhetor's activity. He does, however, agree that the rhetorical situation is characterized by "particularities," and that the rhetor is indeed creative. It seems to me that people will respond to situations in creative ways, in addition to creating situations to which to respond. Exactly how or why this happens does not seem of pressing importance. The capricious, volatile nature of the human being makes it difficult to describe or account for human motivation and discourse, and I think all these articles need a greater emphasis on psychology to add to their credibility.
Moutford's article seemed more authentic and immediately relevant. While I'm not particularly interested in the ideas presented about gender or pulpits, I am interested in the cultural implications of space, including "the intersection of social behavior and material space," (49) as described by Henri Lefebvre. I would like to read more about this topic, and at least two books or articles from this reading caught my eye. As rhetoricians, we cannot and should not ignore material space.

Booth's obsession with implementing effective Rhet-Ed is intense, especially when he mentions the ideal island in which the very course of a citizen's life is dictated by all things rhetoric. While speaking and writing well (in addition to developing strong LR) are important, the world of education is far from that ideal. Booth himself mentions the "cutting of music and art programs, reduction in physical education opportunities..."(90). While I don't mean to discount the importance of rhetoric, it seems that a society in which physical education and fitness were prized above all else would produce healthier, happier and more productive citizens, even more so than rhetoric. There is too much academia in schools. More music, art, creative expression and yes, engaging rhetoric, would be excellent assets.
It's simply not true that more money will make for better education and schools. While my school district was affluent and recognized as outstanding, I found my school years, elementary through high school, to be what Booth describes as "a meaningless, even hateful imposition of hours in a nasty, over-crowded, pleasure-free environment to be escaped whenever possible"(91). Only when pursuing music, art, physical education or even engaging debates, did school seem tolerable. I ask, then, is it possible to get students excited about the potential of LR? Can a classroom really provide the environment in which to do that? How can we erase the apahy that is so prevalent? Education (standard schooling) has always seemed overrated to me, but ENRICHMENT seems constantly lacking in most school and communities, and it's enrichment that I value most. The best enrichment comes in the form of park district programs and after-school activities.
bell hooks has idealistic ideas as well, though they are reasonably sound and thought-provoking. Just as Booth advocates LR, hooks says "resisting oppression means more than simply reacting against one's oppressors..."(84). Both authors, then, are essentially claiming that people need to listen to one another, and really listen. Doing so will solve a host of problems. When, however, the idea is presented as thinking "OK, so what you're saying is..." images of pre-marriage training come to mind. In my experience, I spent so much energy focusing on remembering what my partner was saying (so I could repeat it as the exercise required) that I wasn't really thinking or engaged in the debate at all. I believe that LR must take place almost subconsciously, in a non-threatening, non-artificial environment. It must be instilled from childhood, presented as a way to handle sibling squabbles, all the way through friendship woes in high school. Instilling this kind of thinking is not easy. Booth and hooks don't provide real concrete answers as far as how to implement their theories. And, quite honestly, "encouraging students to influence the agendas of their classrooms," as hooks says, sounds like a recipe for chaos, in some ways. I asked the question, "then how do you control the bad kids with wise mouths who threaten your authority, the ones who don't want to be there and don't care?" I realize that in asking that question I am assuming my own right to authority as an instructor, and perhaps hooks would answer that I should find ways to engage those students and make them care. Ah, combating apathy! The solution isn't easy. Perhaps the sickening (according to the authors) state of Rhet-Ed is due to apathy. Maybe people don't care enough about issues to engage in effective debate. As is obvious, there are more questions than answers.