This aspect has interested me greatly, as I am currently working on a essay that sought to fuse my major points of study and ideology over the past few years. The inherent issue was flow, due to the scope of the synthesis that I was attempting. Perhaps a dialogue would provide a smoother blend of ideas, as the format could even provide a sort of storyline that works in all my major points. The issue I see with this format would be sufficiently citing enough sources for credibility, as many of my claims could easily be interpreted as conjecture without the proper evidence.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Pros and cons of dialogue
The dialogue format affords some interesting opportunities for the writer. It seems that with this type of format, an argument of a broader or more interdisciplinary nature can be examined. The premises at hand can be mentioned in conjunction with other ideas that may not follow naturally in a traditional monograph.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most importantly, the interlocution of several different speakers allows for dialectic to take place, both dialogically within the text and dramatically, hovering just above the level of the text. This interchange and process of layering is not possible with a typical treatise, delivered in monologue, and only then in a very clunky and explicit manner. If we were able to read Plato in the original Greek, we would probably come to see his work as philosophy infused with art, not merely a set of instrumental concepts.
ReplyDelete