Complex texts form a key component of the common core in literary analysis. The ideal of such analyses are often farfetched and readily disputed. According to King, gaining real comprehension of common texts is hard for many scholars especially those in the preparatory phases of their studies. Often, the content, as well as structure have certain remarkable semblance relevant to the analyses within. This essay will exploit the various structural and content related paradigms of complex texts, emerging from the works of Stephen King. In the essay, I have analyzed my writing toolbox using ideals like the rhetorical triangle and the appeals of logos and ethos in literary analysis.
First, my writing toolbox emerges in the manner that I analyze the three measures to evaluate complex texts. The qualitative paradigm measures a variety of factors in the complexity and nature of a text. One way I analyze a text in this context is to evaluate the manner that the language appears conversational as well as the academic dimension of the language. On the other hand, one should endeavor to analyze the different levels of figurative usage as well as literal usages in the texts. King advocates that of importance to the text explication is the need to evaluate a text for singular and multiple themes in the labyrinth of complexities. An evaluation emanates from a singular dimension and stretches to multiple viewpoints with the progression of the text. Additionally, the analyst has to consider whether the textual analysis has a demand for familiar knowledge, everyday events, or culturally determined perspectives in line with the requirements of the society. In qualitative measurements, certain indicators are of importance in the valuing of such texts such as the ranking index, which may be higher or lower depending on several factors of interest. These paradigms measure to the rhetorical triangular logos and ethos of my writing toolbox.Quantitative evaluation requires a variety of nuances to extract the core of events; the common core knowledge has a paradigm of criticism. Ideally, no perfect method of evaluation exists at this level. As such, many effective methods exist at every level of analysis. King is categorical on methods like Flesch-Kincaid as well as the Dale Chall with their standards available (King 116).
For written texts, the practice of reading requires continuous practice that is akin to remunerative activities of life like the playing the piano or golfing. The secret of reading is necessary to create the possibility of encountering new words and expressions that help me to develop new texts (118). Therefore, my core of common evaluation falls under the paradigm of every element to create the relevance of every stately situation. The secret requires reading silently and responding to every element of complexity with absolute research and writing. Handling complex texts requires many students tend to read many texts to evaluate and poses the skills to evaluate many paradigms of analysis. Reading silently is a tool that helps to manage the prolificacy of written texts. Oral reading may be important to certain ages of analysis but silent reading appears more effective in the end with returns from every angle. Moreover, complex textual analysis requires the focus on knowledge to acquire the paradigms of every perspective. An immersion in knowledge is necessary to dissect every new element in the context and structure. Such nuances determine the criteria of rhetorical triangle and written texts.
The content of complex texts is often illusive with a variety of tautological nuances as King puts it. One instance is the usage of passive voices in many instances of writing. In one example, King notes that a text could just decide to contain an element of passivity in an obvious manner such that “They carried the dead body to the basement” when the identity of those who carried the body is not known. He however prefers to have somebody do the action, as the passive is incomplete and makes the sentence structure ambiguous.
Another element of complex texts emanate from the complexity if the sentence choices. King remarks that a variety of texts is simple to produce simple texts understandable to all. However, the usage of multiple, complex, and multiple complex sentences are often a recipe of complex texts. King remarks that certain texts are often so complicated because of their poetic discourse and disjointed connections that it becomes difficult to analyze every element within. On the other hand, such elements form the basis of potentially comprehensive texts, which are meaning bound.
Moreover, the ethos of written complex texts and the rhetorical triangle often employ a variety of vocabularies that are often hard to comprehend unless one has a dictionary. A requirement that King requires of many readers is to have better vocabularies through wide reading. He remarks that certain writers have enormous vocabularies (King 114) and require a better base of knowledge to unravel their texts. He gives an example of certain texts that are critical to increase the vocabulary base of readers like texts by Wilfred Funk (King 115). Such texts are bound to help one understand the complexities within texts and unravel them.
One example of such complex structures requiring the rhetorical analysis emerges from Steinbeck’s piece, which reveals the usage of certain varieties falling within the same piece. In the instance used by King (116), where the writer uses the “because” on three occasions as well as “twice” to create the feeling of the element of three in the text. The example also highlights an interesting piece of disyllabic tenure all through the sentence without having to rely on any element of analysis. From this piece, it emerges that at times, the writer does not have to use complex vocabularies to create an interesting textual complexity. A usage of syllables and structures can also create the effect. Interestingly, certain words do not have to exist in the dictionary but still constitute complex vocabulary. Some of these include words like “Egggh or Unnnh” such words are contextual and require an understanding of the cultural as well as speech usage (King 117).
However, complex sentences also disregard the elements of rhetoric in the sense that they have less inclination to the verb subject usage in many instances. Such rhetoric take care of actions such as the complete sentence syndrome so that fragments and floating clauses may become the basic nuance of classic appearances (King 120). Such rhetorical inclinations form the elements of style that are vital in textual analysis.
The idea of the rhetorical triangle therefore, portrays a tridimensional aspect of the complex text with an inclination to the three aspects of ethics. These ethical considerations are the logos at the apex and the ethos and pathos at the two rear ends. The logos contain the idea, which is central to the narration of the story regardless of whatever form it emerges. Supporting the message are two critical elements if pathos which is the force and emotion accompanying the text. The ethos includes the form and manner of presentation it details. King asserts that a good fiction always begins with a story, which initiates the conflict and then proceeds to the theme (11). Exceptions also exist to this rule with such texts as George Orwell’s text where the story idea emerges first.
As noted in every writing scenario, there are bound to be writing revisions at every angle of narration. One instance of such is the usage of formal and informal discourse at every angle of the narration to create an impact of peaceful evaluation. In one instance, King assumes that pace determines the speed with which a work of art unfolds (279). He unveils one major part of a complex story to include the factual realities of a well-merged story fused with the paradigm of formal and informal discourses. It may seem easy to identify the connotation of a complex text without having to note the struggle and revisions that emerge in the course of such creations (King 282). The ideal of such complexities omits the trouble of having to use a variety of “needless” words (282) that do not encompass any factional situation. The trick for such eventual changes emerges in the writing of the first draft, which undergoes revisions as accorded by the critics and the writers. Therefore, a variety of factors determines the stricture and content of a complex text. The variety, as discussed by King, has a manner of determining the various allures of the environment to create the possible reading culture desired. Elements like the passivity index as well as the nominal activity structures determine every necessary structure in place. Therefore, the rhetorical triangle as well as the various canons employed by the writer as elaborated by King is necessary. The rhetorical paradigm and the classics of complex writing determine adequate writing activity index.
Reference
King, Stephen. On writing. Hachette UK, 2001. (111-284).
