Chapter 8: A Discussion of the “Rhetoric Is Useless” Thesis

Section 1: A Paradox That Has Never Gone Out of Fashion
In the past twenty years of engaging in modern poetry criticism and interpretive reading, the most frequently heard “paradox” (Paradox) is the claim that “rhetoric is useless.” Those who hold this view generally argue as follows:

(1) “Articles are naturally formed; brilliant lines are偶然 obtained by skillful hands.”
Beautiful poems and excellent lines can only rely on a flash of inspiration; they are never the result of deliberate refinement through rhetorical devices.

(2) Heaven-endowed genius: great poets are not constrained by rhetoric
When great poets and literary masters create timeless masterpieces, what they think about is not how to use rhetorical devices, but how to express emotions and intentions. In other words, some poets and writers, throughout their lives of writing poetry and prose, may not have a clear concept or understanding of rhetorical devices, yet this does not diminish their brilliance in literary history.

(3) Readers only need to “know that it is so,” not need to know “why it is so.”
Readers only need to know that certain poems or essays are beautiful works; why must they “know why it is so,” and figure out exactly what makes them good?

In this article, the author will present theoretical arguments and real examples to refute these claims one by one.

Section 2: The Historical Origin and Practical Value of Rhetoric
Since ancient times in the Western world, “rhetoric,” which trains writing and speaking skills, has been regarded as one of the core subjects of education. Philosophy and rhetoric together form the two pillars of Western humanistic education. Rhetoric appeared very early in both Eastern and Western traditions. In Aristotle’s works, there are the “Poetics” and the “Rhetoric,” which respectively propose concepts such as metaphor and contrast. The most important classical work of Eastern rhetoric is Liu Xie’s The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons, in which chapters such as “Metaphor and Association” and “Exaggeration” discuss the application of rhetorical devices. In Mencius, the “art of debate” is also built upon the foundation of rhetoric and linguistic logic.

(1) Three parts talent, seven parts cultivation
“Articles are naturally formed; brilliant lines are偶然 obtained by skillful hands.” Beautiful poems and excellent lines can only rely on a flash of inspiration; they are never the result of deliberate refinement through rhetorical devices.

The original emphasis of the phrase “Articles are naturally formed; brilliant lines are偶然 obtained by skillful hands” lies in the first half: “Articles are naturally formed.” Excellent poetry and prose come from a state of natural perfection, but the prerequisite is the author’s rich learning and life experience. Without these “assets,” how could anything be “naturally formed”?

Sikong Tu’s Twenty-Four Categories of Poetry discusses “Magnificence” as follows:
“The great use is externally flourishing, the true essence is internally full. Returning from emptiness into fullness, accumulating strength becomes grandeur. Containing all things, spanning beyond the vast sky. Vast drifting clouds, distant long winds. Transcending outward appearance, obtaining the central essence.”
This describes how a writer must possess profound learning and life experience.

Du Gongbu (Du Fu) said: “After reading ten thousand books, one writes as if aided by the divine.” This likewise shows that rich learning greatly benefits creation.

“Brilliant lines are occasionally obtained by skillful hands.” means that even with excellent technique (“skillful hands”), fine lines still require inspiration; only when inspiration arrives can one occasionally capture them in a fleeting moment. One cannot expect excellent lines to be easily produced at will.

I believe “three parts innate talent, seven parts acquired cultivation,” which is an extension of the “nature and nurture” dual theory. In Taiwanese popular lyrics, “Three parts destiny, seven parts effort” (Love to Win Will Win) expresses this same idea of “postnatal determinism.”

I have seen many rising poets who were once highly anticipated by senior writers, but within a few years they disappear without a trace, or their brilliance fades and their work declines. The problem lies in their own “endurance.” It is clear that innate “talent” alone is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for becoming a “great poet.”

(2) Great literary masters are never rhetorical idiots
Great poets and literary masters, when creating timeless works, think not about how to use rhetorical devices, but about how to express emotion.

This claim is almost pure speculation. If one says that such masters had no concept of structure or rhetoric at all, and that merely by “heavenly talent” plus “inspiration” they could produce works that echo through the ages, this is simply too much of a fantasy.

Otherwise, someone should borrow Doraemon’s time machine, bring back Li Bai and Du Fu, and ask them whether, in the moment of creation, their minds were merely chaotic images and boiling emotions, with no sense of structure or rhetoric at all.

A more balanced view is that these great poets and writers were already thoroughly familiar with structure and rhetorical devices. During creation, they naturally and spontaneously used these internalized, generalized forms of knowledge, which had already become part of their creative experience.

(3) Do not treat readers as intellectually disabled children
Readers only need to “know that it is so” (know that a poem is beautiful) and that is enough; why must they “know why it is so” (why it is good)?

This view is in fact quite anti-intellectual and cannot withstand theoretical scrutiny. It is like treating readers as good-tempered intellectually disabled children.

A poem recognized as good by readers must have its “features.” If one cannot articulate those features, then there is no basis for arguing that it is a good poem. Through rhetorical theory and structural analysis, one can analyze these features and derive principles and techniques.

Moreover, if you truly “do not know why it is so,” then if I say: “There is not a single bad poem in the world,” how would you refute that proposition?

The standards for evaluating poetry and prose are: (1) technique, and (2) artistic realm. If a poem has poor technique, can its realm still be profound? This is a self-contradiction that is truly hard to understand.

Some say: “A certain poem is unreasonable yet marvelous.” This does not mean that its technique cannot be analyzed, but that its artistic atmosphere or conception is exquisite. Although it is “abnormal” and goes beyond ordinary logical or experiential rules, it is still “in accordance with Dao,” and readers can still perceive the author’s intention. This corresponds to Yan Yu’s Canglang Shihua, which states: “Poetry has a special flavor, unrelated to reason.” It is precisely because of its “abnormality” that it is creative; and because it is “in accordance with Dao,” it can be accepted by readers.

(4) Turning the tables on you
Next, I would like to ask those who claim “rhetoric is useless” a question. Please use your brains and publicly answer the following:

In literary works from ancient to modern times, East and West, is there any line or passage with poetic quality that cannot be explained through rhetorical devices?

Please provide an example. I will then find its rhetorical theoretical basis. If I cannot, I will formally become your student and respectfully serve you every day—washing your back, cleaning your backside, carrying your urinal, and emptying your chamber pot.

If I can find the theoretical evidence, then do not back out or claim that my argument is merely “subjective intuition” or “impressionistic criticism,” because “rhetoric” is not my personal invention. I have simply studied it thoroughly and applied it flexibly. My theoretical arguments must also withstand the scrutiny of rhetorical scholars.

Finally, I offer a sincere reminder to those who insist on the “rhetoric is useless” doctrine: before dismissing “rhetoric” as something “completely useless” (Taiwanese slang), should you not first enter the field of rhetoric and understand what it actually is, what the hell it is, and then seriously try to find evidence of its “uselessness” to convince me? And make me accept it!