The rhetorical triangle is a framework that provides the form and boundaries that I spoke about in my post on my writing feeling like wet cement. It's such a simple notion, and yet it supplies such a critical heuristic for everything I write.
Logos is the first side of the triangle. I think of logos as the nuts and bolts of writing an essay: good structure, easy-to-follow organization, strong transitions between paragraphs (so that the reader knows where I've been and where I'm going), an interesting (hook) introduction, a compelling conclusion, and great sources. To me, all of these make up a good, logical, well-thought out piece of writing.
One note here about sources: students complain frequently to me about citing their sources, and being required to follow all the citation rules. The point of citing sources is not to just make us "follow certain rules" or give us "hoops" to jump through. The point of citing sources is to leave markers along your research pathway. This allows readers and researchers and writers who come after you, to re-create your research and then add to it. Over time, this all becomes a body of research that creates a body of knowledge. So citing sources is not just about rules, it's about becoming a part of a larger discussion in that discipline or that area of knowledge.
The second leg of the rhetorical triangle is pathos. I consider this leg the audience-focused portion of the triangle. In this area, I'm trying to think like my readers. It can be as simple as my word choice or as complex as researching the groups and organizations the audience may belong to. In teaching composition, I often use a simple example here to help students understand audience: pretend that you're writing an email to your best friend, describing your activities from the previous weekend (parties you went to, people you saw, etc.). Then, write that same email, only this time to your parents, describing the same events and people: the only difference being, the audience. It's fairly easy to see that you would speak/write differently to your friend than you probably would to your parents. This is pathos: you consider the needs, values, beliefs, and feelings of your audience as you write, and you write in such a way that your argument or point does not alienate them, but rather welcomes them to consider your opinion and your idea.
Finally, both logos and pathos add up to give you credibility as a writer: ethos. You may have some credibility with your audience already, if they know you, or if they've read your work before. But whether you have that credibility already or not, you can extend it or create it through the other two sides of the triangle. If you create/write a logical, well-constructed essay, you have strengthened your ethos. If you appeal to the values of your audience, and you don't alienate them with words or ideas that they find offensive, you have strengthened your ethos. If you cite your sources completely and clearly so they can see your line of reasoning, you've strengthened your ethos.
As I said, the rhetorical triangle is the centerpiece of writing for me. I think of it everyday, when I write emails, when I'm speaking with my colleagues, when I'm working with a student. In oral or written communication, the rhetorical triangle is an organizational tool that can strengthen all our communication with one another.
