When reading Gorgias, I thought a lot about what Socrates' criteria were for something to be deemed as good oratory. (I'm reluctant to use the word "good" here as I feel like I'll be asked to defend what is is I mean by the term...). Anyway on p. 847, Socrates discusses the differences between good and bad oratory. He describes bad oratory as "flattery" or "shameful public harangue" and he later describes good oratory as that which gets "the souls of the citizens to be as good as possible and of striving valiantly to say what is best, whether the audience will find it more pleasant or more unpleasant" (847). When reading this, I questioned whether Socrates was setting too high of a standard or establishing criteria that would be difficult to meet. Specifically, in his discussions, Socrates refers to groups, i.e. Athenians, rather than individual people. Sure, in the section I quote above, he does mention "individual" but it is important to note that he refers to them in a plural rather than singular sense. My question is when oratory is delivered, does Socrates require that every member of the group be moved to be as good as possible? What if only a small percentage were affected by the oratory in a good way and were moved to be as good as possible? Would it be enough that only a small number be improved via the oratory in order for the oratory to be deemed as good? Under Socrates' criteria, it appears that it would not be enough because all Athenians would not have become better, and thus the city would not be in a better position. I recognize why Socrates takes this position, as he is striving for an ideal, but he makes no room for error/inconsistency, which can be off-putting. Furthermore, by setting such a high standard, he makes little room for oratory to be used or viewed productively. I recognize that this was his goal, but the high standard leaves little room for discussions of the way that we today see rhetoric as being productive, generative, etc.