Understand What You Read with the Rhetorical Précis

The rhetorical précis is a useful tool for guiding your reading and making sure you understand what a text is saying and doing in context. In this video, I show you how to use it.
Join us on Discord!
/ discord
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @writingwithandrew
0:00 Introduction
2:45 The Rhetorical Précis
7:06 So What?
11:10 Conclusion

[@Christ_is_King373]

Thank you so much for the effort you put into these videos! Your channel has become one of my most favorite

[@WritingwithAndrew]

You bet--I'm really happy to hear that!

[@SammyJ96]

This was a struggle for me as well . Thank you so much,Professor Andrew !

[@WritingwithAndrew]

You bet!

[@ElliotBrownJingles]

Thanks, Prof. Andrew, for another great lesson!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

You bet! Thanks for another great comment 😁

[@joshuajohnson9594]

I am not sure how but a crossover between yourself and Dr. Sledge from Esoterica, possibly for a Halloween episode, would be great! I noticed the titles of the books Kabu is set upon. Just a thought, thank you for soing what you di!

[@karenmcpherson9221]

I wish I'd had this video when I first started reading Wright Morris. Would have saved a lot of frustration.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Ah, well, I guess you have it for when you run into the next frustrating writer! 🙂

[@ormulyce-569]

Thank you. Yes, focus on details often hides the global meaning. When you say précis in the middle of a sentence, it's a 100% French accent . 👏

[@danagreen6518]

look forward to more writing sense

[@ismaeel9926]

Amazing as always

[@WritingwithAndrew]

You're too kind!

[@cleo512]

thank you for this one!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Sure thing!

[@paxtonanthonymurphy3733]

Getting the big picture of what the text is about is all well and good...until the Professor wants you to understand point by point how the writer of the text reached his conclusion. Then one finds oneself in the weeds trying to understand the development of the writers argument. For example when Professor Pearson asked us to learn the logical argument of a chapter in The Republic. I found myself slogging through the literary equivalent of a mud pit. Struggling and struggling and not making any progress...just stuck in the damn mud no matter how many times I read it! What is your response to my difficulties?

[@WritingwithAndrew]

I'd reaffirm the value of context: stepping back to see how the text is put together and what it's trying to accomplish really helps. I think many readers get stuck on one part and then just stop, but it can be helpful to keep reading, figure out what the writer is trying to say and then go back to fill in the confusing details once you have a better understanding of what the text as a whole is trying to do. (For a long time, for example, I ignored section headings when I read larger texts, but, when they're there, they show you how the writer has structured the text--and that can help you to make sense of it more efficiently than just reading it word by word.) Also, it's a thing that comes with practice--and the rhetorical précis is a tool for knowing where to start

[@bmw4189]

Hey my friend, How are you doing? I have a question. I'm a Brazilian teacher and I would like to know How do you call in English a poem's voice? Poetic speaker, lyrical persona or is there other options?

[@WritingwithAndrew]

I think "speaker" is the most common way to refer to whoever is the voice of the poem. I've heard others, like persona, but rarely. Mas, agora, como se chama em português?

[@bmw4189]

@@WritingwithAndrew in Portuguese we say "eu lírico"

[@bmw4189]

@@WritingwithAndrew and thanks a lot for answering me.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Sure thing!

[@lindaabraham8715]

Your theme song is the same as for "The Chap's Guide." Just saying.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

The joys of KZbin's stock music library 😆

[@bigbiggoblin2873]

Noice

[@GNARGNARHEAD]

to the writing advice, I'd say 95%+ of the books I've ever read should have been a leaflet.. the writing of books seems purely a form of social posturing.. 😡!!

[@cokesucker9520]

Depends on the types of books that you read. Most math books I've read are pretty well justified in their lengths for example. For books on ideas, the idea usually takes less time than the justification - so if you're just there for the Cliff's Notes, I don't know why you're reading the book to begin with. All that being said, you do have a point, there are a lot of books that could have been an article without loosing anything important.

[@Lickmuffin]

I seem to have been doing this all my life without knowing there was a formal name for it. But having worked in the deep end of various technology settling tanks (where the heavy chunks fall out of suspension first and collect on the bottom in an abominably aromatic but satisfyingly squishy sludge), my Four Questions tend towards cynicism: Who is this jackwagon and what are they after? How are they peddling this BS? What do they want from me? Cash? Obedience? Status? Who does this tosspot hold in contempt and is their contempt obvious or is it veiled in LinkedIn rah-rah-you're-all-so-great insincerity? Has served me pretty well. Although I do have to tell people that I'm retired and not just unemployed.

[@cokesucker9520]

The real answer is to just read enough that you no longer have serious difficulty interpreting a sentence. The rest of what you’re saying is essentially the Feynman technique, where you try to condense the meaning of the text and gain a new appreciation of it as a result.

[@charlessmyth]

That's an approach that occurred to me also :-)

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Interesting connection--the Feynman technique seems more generalized where the rhetorical précis is more finely attuned to a specific text's rhetorical context. Imagine what would be possible if someone applied them both together...!

[@cokesucker9520]

@@WritingwithAndrew It sounds like it would be a less comprehensive version of a zettelkasten.