Tag Archives: EN502

Electronic Texts and Tacit Persuasion Patterns


Teaching critical theory last night, I was pleasantly surprised by a passage in Richard Lanham’s 1983 Analyzing Prose, excerpted in Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan’s anthology Literary Theory as “Tacit Persuasion Patterns.” Somehow it jumped out in a new way this term, and it sparked an interesting discussion of how student blogs can work to create a community of reader-writers:

Compulsively patterned prose…is hard to take…. We don’t like the compulsive repetition. But even more, we don’t like the direction in which the intellectual current flows [in the experience of such repetition]–from pattern to thought, rather than vice versa. We have thought, ever since this patterning was repudiated by the plain styles which followed upon the scientific revolution, that thought came first. Words only dress it up. Western educational history, until that time, mostly thought otherwise. Verbal patterns were instruments to think with, and they were taught as part of the training in how to think. Pattern/thought, pattern/thought, pattern/thought–a continuing oscillation. We shall see this pair of viewpoints return when we come to consider electronic text. Patterning there is dynamic and three-dimensional but, even more than with print or manuscript, exerts back-pressure on how we think, and how we learn to think. (186)

So, when working with electronic text–especially collaborative forms of reading that themselves function in rather writerly ways–the “patterning” of rhetoric, the forms of language, clearly shapes how we think rather than the familiar commonplace that thought shapes how we write.

One of my students connected this moment to an excerpt from Stanley Fish’s “Interpretive Communities,” where he notes that “what utterers do is give hearers and readers the opportunity to make meanings (and texts) by inviting them to put into execution a set of strategies” (Rivkin & Ryan 220). There is a clear way in which these modern critics are interested in, as a whole, critiquing, defamiliarizing, or throwing into relief the artifice of meaning. We’re reading structuralism for next class, so I’m interested to see how this conversation will develop after a few bits of Ferdinand de Saussure! (Contemplating the utility of The Magnetic Fields for said class….)

How will the use of blogs in this class shape our discussions, and even our understanding of critical theory?

From formalism to rhetoric

To open discussion today, I want to start with a quote from Brooks’ “The Formalist Critics” that seems to offer an excellent transition into a useful consideration of rhetorical analysis:

Literature is not inimical to ideas. It thrives upon ideas but does not present ideas patly and neatly. It involves them with the “recalcitrant stuff of life.” The literary critic’s job is to deal with that involvement. (Rivkin & Ryan 23, 26-27)

And in Ryan’s Literary Theory: A Practical Introduction, he describes rhetorical analysis as first depending on the awareness that the stuff of life is being shaped–what choices have been made in shaping this representation, this character, this plot, this description, and what is their effect? What has been represented, and what has not been represented? What do we expect to appear, and what actually appears? How does representation work on the reader to “change behavior, mold perception and belief, or challenge assumptions” (Ryan 49)? He notes,

The makers of cultural works do not simply seek to inspire belief in an imaginary world in their audiences. They seek to create a particular kind of belief, one characterized by positive and negative judgments and feelings. […] The field of rhetoric includes not only the choices and valuations that go into the selection of elements that shade audience perceptions and judgments in different ways, but also the way selected elements are arranged logically in a narrative sequence. (Ryan 47)

This should get us into a discussion of the other ways that texts acquire meaning–not just through the selection and arrangement of words or images, but also through broader cultural and interpretive predispositions that are themselves what we might call accretions of belief. How are our “interpretive communities” formed (Ryan 49)? Along what lines does our lived experience shape how we come to a text, and therefore what a text is, does, or causes us to believe? Finally, Austin’s concept of speech acts works as a way to concretize the rhetorical power of language (Ryan 49).

Formalism, Using Blogs in Class

I just received the MLA edition on teaching contemporary theory to undergraduates I ordered in preparation for my courses this term, and on a quick browse, it looks less useful than I thought it would be–that is, more theoretical. Which is not bad, but telling…. Why do we assume that if a text like this doesn’t have direct, hands-on suggestions for engaging students in the material that it’s “less useful”? Framing theory, helping students see how and, more importantly, why it’s in the curriculum in the first place, is one of the most challenging facets of this kind of class, and I think we get around it by divvying up the syllabus according to arbitrary sets of critical approaches while ignoring the conceptual relations between them. I have to admit, I’m guilty of it, too, though I try to historicize the approaches as best I can. I was skimming through John Kucich’s piece (random side note: I took a class from him on Victorian literature and masochism at the University of Michigan, and I remember vividly a few faculty student parties at which wonderful conversations were had, so I figured I’d start there!) and I have to say I’m looking forward to playing with ways to select a handful of complete primary texts to share with undergraduates throughout the term. By the way, if anyone has good recommendations for more contemporary texts like that MLA options for teaching, please comment!

But, today we’re going over formalism.

We’re also going to spend some time today dealing with student blogs–I’m asking everyone to keep a personal online journal, where each student will respond to the day’s readings and periodically comment on their peers’ work, too. We didn’t have a tutorial on setting up a blog before I assigned it; rather, I wanted to see how they would go about it, where the problems were, and whether they could discover how to overcome those problems–whether through trial and error or by looking up an online tutorial, asking questions of friends, and so on.

It occurs to me that this presents an opportunity to connect some of the theoretical issues to a very practical, very everyday context. If form is meaning, and meaning is form, then what are some of the meanings generated by the particular formal features of Marymount’s WordPress install? What habits of reading will be created? How will those habits of reading–and of writing–be reinforced, limited, or enabled by the formal features of the tool? One starting question to ask would be: “what do you have to do, physically, to read a peer’s blog and comment on it?” We can take a few moments to do it, then reflect on how the formal features of the install are canalizing our behavior.