When certain kinds of rhetoric are used in drama (and indeed in other forms of fiction), they raise what one might call a problem of 'Voice' or of 'degree'. The problem could be expressed thus: when we hear or read an overtly rhetorical speech (one whose purpose within the fiction is to persuade, or which is conspicuously ornamented with rhetorical figures, or which answers both these descriptions), does the author wish us to admire the rhetorical skill of his character? or does he want us to be 'worked on' by the rhetoric, as if it were aimed straight at us rather than at the other inmates of the fiction? In the latter case if, upon reflection, we admire the rhetoric, we shall be commenting directly upon the author's skill in rhetoric rather than upon his use of rhetoric as one means of animating his characters. We know that we are reading or hearing rhetoric, but are we to perceive the author, or his character, as the rhetor?

The distinction is bound to affect our reception of dramatic language, and our response to it.