Centrality of Style, The. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
Aristotle’s claim that “A writer must disguise his art and give the impression of speaking naturally and not artificially,” in On Rhetoric (1991, 3.2); and in Cicero’s statement, “The main object of the orator was that he should both appear himself, to those before whom he was pleading, to be such a man as he would desire to seem … and that the hearts of his hearers should be touched in such a fashion as the orator would have them touched” (De Oratore, 1.19).
14.Similarly, we might recall how Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s claim to have written “Kubla Khan” while dreaming makes the mind of the poet seem all the greater.
15.Regarding the convergence of selectivity, manipulation, nostalgia, and digital metaphor, one might question: Where do these metaphors come from? On whose nostalgias are they based? If every act of collective memory and nostalgia is also an act of selective memory and amelioration of the past, whose oppressed and suppressed experiences are being recalled or elided in these metaphors?
16.For further reading on the sprezzaturic design of digital interfaces see Cynthia and Richard Selfe’s Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones, 2010).
17.Though, a history of yellow and stunt journalism might disrupt this narrative.
18.Such confessions, however, do not seem to mollify opposing critics, as liberals will still critique O’Reilly and conservatives will still critique Stewart. In addition, Stewart has an even stronger confessional defense in his constant claims that The Daily Show is “the fake news” despite the fact that perhaps a large number of viewers get their only “news” from the show.
19.Though labeling new media conceptions of hypermediacy as “confessional” may be somewhat troubling because few, if any, of the authors I discuss conceive of their ideologies along an ethical continuum, I think the benefits of drawing a comparison between confessional rhetoric and hypermediation outweigh the risk of misinterpretation.
20.Accessed for free online at: http://www.technorhetoric.net/13.2/topoi/delagrange/index.html.
21.See John Schilb’s Rhetorical Refusals as well as Schroeder, Fox, and Bizzell’s collection Alt Dis: Alternative Discourses in the Academy (2007) for examples of scholars who agree that writers need the ability to resist the style of the majority.
22.Though Williams’s other work on style is richly theoretical, his style manual, Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace, like those of other stylistic mavericks (I’m thinking of Lanham’s “paramedic method,” here) falls slightly short of the plurality he suggests in his more academic pieces. Indeed, the “grace” of the subtitle refers more to concision than anything else. But maybe such condensing is simply necessary to create a pragmatic manual. For a more complex analysis of the pros and cons of Wiliams’s (and Lanham’s) stylistic oeuvre, see Lester Faigley’s Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition.
23.See Warschauer’s and Banks’s multiple accesses; Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury’s multiple digital divides; and Selber’s muliliteracies.
24.For further information on shopdropping and other culture jamming examples see: www.woostercollective.com.
References
Aristotle (1991). On rhetoric. (Kennedy, G. A., Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Augustine. Confessions and Enchiridion. (Outler, A. C. Trans.). Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confessions.toc.html
Augustine (2008). Book IV: De doctrina christiana. In Enos, R. L. & Thompson, R. et al. (Eds.), The Rhetoric of St. Augustine of Hippo: De Doctrina Christiana and the Search for a Distinctly Christian Rhetoric (pp. 33-183). Waco: Baylor University Press.
Banks, A. J. (2006). Race, rhetoric, and technology: Searching for higher ground. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bolter, J. D. & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge: MIT Press
Burke, K. (1968). Language as symbolic action: Essays of life, literature, and method. Berkley: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1984). Permanence and change (3rd ed.). Berkley: University of California Press.
Cage, J. (1992). Listen [DVD].
Carlo, R. (2013). Jim Corder’s reflective ethos as alternative to traditional argument: Style’s revivification of the writer-reader relationship. In M. Duncan & S. Vanguri (Eds.), The centrality of style. Fort Collins, CO/Anderson, SC: The WAC Clearinghouse/Parlor Press.
Castiglione, B. (2000). The book of the courtier (Opdycke, L. E., Trans.). Herfordshire: Wordsworth.
Delagrange, S. H. (2009). Wunderkammer, Cornell, and the visual canon of arrangement. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. 13(2). Retrieved from http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/13.2/topoi/delagrange/index.html
De Man, P. (1982). Hegel on the sublime. In M. Krupnick (Ed.), Displacement: Derrida and after (pp. 139-153). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Erasmus, D. De copia.
Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. (1980). The confessions of the flesh. In Colin Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977. New York: Random House.
Foucault, M. (1990) The history of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction. New York: Vintage Books.
Gass, W. H. (1997). Finding a form: Essays by William H. Gass. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Guerlac, S. (1985). Longinus and the subject of the sublime. New Literary History 16(2), 275-289. JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/468747
Klosterman, C. (2003). Sex, drugs, and cocoa puffs: A low culture manifesto. New York: Scribner.
Lamb, J. (1993). Longinus, the dialectic, and the practice of mastery. English Literary History 60(3), 545-567. JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2873404
Lanham, R. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lanham, R. (2007). Revising prose (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge: MITP.
McLuhan, M. (2003). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Critical Edition. (W. Terrence Gordon, Ed.). Corte Madera: Gingko P, 2003.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality beyond the digital divide. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Russell, D. A. & Winterbottom, M. (Eds.) (1972). Classical literary criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schilb, J. (2007). Rhetorical refusals: Defying audience’s expectations. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schroeder, C., Fox, H., & Bizzell, P. (Eds.). (2002). Alt dis: Alternative discourses and the academy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Selfe, C L., & Selfe, R. J., Jr. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication 45(4), 480-504.
Shakespeare, W. (1997). The tragedy of Julius Caesar. The Riverside Shakespeare: The complete works (2nd ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Sirc, G. (2004). Box-Logic. Writing new media: Theory and applications for expanding the teaching of composition. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Strunk, W, & White, E. B. (1979). The elements of style (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Sutherland, C. M. (2004). Augustine, ethos, and the integrative nature of Christian rhetoric. Rhetor 1, 1-18.
Sutherland, J. (1957). On English prose. Toronto: University of Toronto