Sublimity and Rhetorical Velocity

Longinus’s On the Sublime and Ridolfo and DeVoss’ "Composing for Recomposition" were two articles in class that we recently covered just last week. By far my favorite out of the two was On the Sublime because Longinus wrote about how making a good oration or constructing a good speech has supernatural elements to it, much like Hesiod’s Theogony or the Biblical writers who wrote the Hebrew and Christian Bible; it makes you think that he does have a point. However, another point that interested me last week in class was a question proposed by Dr. Graban, which was: Are rhetorical velocity and sublime the same thing, or could rhetorical velocity be a form of sublimity? Well my goal it today is to answer this question.

There are similarities in the goal of the objectives both in Longinus’s 5 Sources and Ridolfo and DeVoss’ Concerns for Invention. So are they trying to achieve the same thing? The answer is yes, they are trying to achieve the sublime, but can rhetorical velocity actually achieve sublimity? That is a different question. 

To start, I will define the both terms. In class we defined the sublime as, “other worldly, or non-material, or divine, or spiritual” (Graban, Longinus notes) and we defined rhetorical velocity as, “the strategic theorizing for how a text might be recomposed (and why it might be recomposed) by third parties, and how this recomposing may be useful or not to the short- or long-term rhetorical objectives of the rhetorician” (Ridolfo & DeVoss).

               

These two concepts as Longinus defines sublime and Ridolfo and DeVoss define rhetorical velocity have similarities to each other. As an orator would conduct his speech the rhetor recomposing has to, “weigh the positive and negative possibilities of different types of textual appropriation against desired objectives: ‘If I release the video in this format, could the video be used in this way, and would it be worth their time to do this? And would it be supportive of my objectives for them to do that?’ And in this sense, the theorizing of the question of  ‘is it worth the time to do this’ calls into question a set of economic and material concerns” (Ridolfo & DeVoss), for the rhetorician to do this means he or she is wanting a particular outcome for how their work will be received just as an orator looking for the sublime. So it can be understood that the rhetor using rhetorical velocity wants to give their reader or watcher some sort of particular response, sublimity. As Longinus states, “the orator must not have low or ignoble thoughts [to reach sublimity]” (Longinus, 351), and it can be establish that a rhetor using rhetorical velocity follows the same guidelines, they are concerned for their audience’s sake.

As Longinus uses his sources for a possible way to reach sublimity Ridolfo and DeVoss use steps for reaching successful rhetorical velocity. Let’s compare sources and steps:

Longinus’ 5 Sources of Sublimity (350)

1) Power to conceive great thoughts.

2) Strong inspired emotion.

3) Certain kinds of figures (thoughts and speech).

4) Noble diction.

5) Dignified and elevated word-arrangement.

Ridolfo and DeVoss’ Concerns for Invention

1) Who is interested?

2) Why do they want to recompose my work?

3) What will they produce?

4) How might it be delivered?

5) How might I work to facilitate this?

6) What genres and mediums will the works potentially transcend?

7) What will the temporal lifespan be?

Longinus wrote, “Sublimity… produced at the right moment, tears everything up like a whirlwind, and exhibits the orator’s power at a single blow” (Longinus, 347), I believe that this is true for rhetorical velocity, any video or speech recomposed at the right moment can give a heavy blow, but another question arises: since it is being recomposed wouldn’t it be the original author or speaker who his giving the audience that is watching the recomposed work the heavy blow and not the rhetor recomposing. Also Longinus writes, “ most important of all, the very fact that some things in literature depend on nature alone can itself be learned only from art” (Longinus, 347), meaning that some forms of sublimity comes from nature and if it is being learned then it must come from art. So, if the rhetor of a recomposed work wants to use rhetorical velocity they have to have inspiration (not just an exigence) of another work of rhetorical velocity to compose an affective work, and if so they give their audience sublimity then that original work of rhetorical velocity that inspired with new work was a piece of art; according to Longinus.

However, the nature of the sublime or the fact that it is something that seems to come from nature is the only thing that keeps the rhetorical velocity from ever reaching sublimity. Rhetorical velocity is, “a set of practices rhetorical velocity is, secondly, a term that describes an understanding of how the speed at which information composed to be recomposed travels—that is, it refers to the understanding and rapidity at which information is crafted, delivered, distributed, recomposed, redelivered, redistributed, etc., across physical and virtual networks and spaces” (Ridolfo & DeVoss), meaning that it is not something from nature and is not natural, but virtual and done at a speedy rate. This would not be able to meet any sublimity that an orator could make to his/her audience because the audience is there and experience every second of the sublime moment the orator gives.

The Analogy: Re-composition with Rhetorical Velocity is like looking through a Window of a toyshop, but never being able to actually play with the toy:

Think of watching a band live on stage for the first time, for instance: Mumford and Sons! You are there for every second and witness the raw nature of seeing them live= sublimity! However, what if you film the concert with your smart phone and send the message to a friend who is a big fan too of something awesome that just occurred five seconds prior- of course video would be your medium choice because a text would not be able to capture the extremity of the situation that just occurred- Your friend watches the video and freaks out (Sublimity?). The question is, would it be just as sublime to your friend as it was to you? The window expands there have been lets say over two thousand re-compositions of your original video in the next hour. Would those re-compositions give the same sublimity to audiences that your original video did? Or even seeing them live did?

To take in consideration for you readers and some subjects you can touch up on that I did not reach:

Are there different degrees of sublimity? And if so, how do we factor the degrees of sublimity?  Can a virtual thing (not correct use of word, but I don’t know what word other than ‘thing’ to use) give sublimity? And are different mediums than oration capable of reaching sublimity?  


Longinus. “From On the Sublime.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, Second Edition. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 344-358

Ridolfo, Jim, and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss. “Composing for Recompostion: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery.” Kairos 13.2 (2008): n. pag. Web.