Ethos and Character Development

                I have always thought of the concept of “character development” to mean something quite differently from what I read about this week in our textbook. My concept that I have always thought to be true was that a character was a set of traits that established overarching theme that someone possessed that overall shaped the dialog of a particular piece of writing. I have always thought of ethos as being set by the character and reflected in the writing. What I took away from the reading in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, was that a rhetor will establish his or her character, or ethos through the writing.

                Based on this concept, I also believe that it is possible, albeit within boundaries of what is socially tolerable, to be able to possess, or take on a different character for each particular situation. The authors of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students refer to Aristotle’s concept of “invented ethos”. I draw the conclusion that a rhetor will be, depending on how well known he or she is, tied to invent an “invented ethos” to operate within the boundaries of “situated ethos”; which is what I understand to be what is generally known about a rhetor’s character by the audience.

                These two concepts can ebb and flow throughout a rhetor’s career, depending on the audience and how well known he or she is. It is possible for a lesser-known rhetor to have a more flexible character then a more well-known rhetor, due to the fact that the general audience may have less general information about the rhetor. However, a up and coming rhetor must be careful due to the fact that an audience may draw conclusions about the rhetor’s character through examination of his or her “invented ethos”. Inconsistent details in the “invented ethos”, or details that are inconsistent with “situated ethos” will draw attention to those details and detract from the credibility of the rhetor.