Killingsworth and Daniel each exhibited extremely
thought-provoking, direct, bold claims in their works, somewhat intertwining
and feeding off of one another. However,
in my perusing of Daniel’s project, I could not help but think of it as a
blatant example useful in defining genre and it’s effects, as well as an
example of hypertextuality, and even rhetorical velocity in some senses. The
voices, along with the somewhat literally breath-taking quotes that appeared on
the screen in Daniel’s virtual walkthrough exhibit, connect automatically with
the reader and their relation to something so human becomes prevalent in the
mind. This auditory and visual, along
with a more background kinetic (mouse traction), connection allows the reader
to step outside of conventional and literary definitions of genre, rhetorical velocity, and hypertext, simply
because this “text” communicates with and connects to so many different areas
of the reader’s psyche.
When initially encountering Daniel’s project, I was automatically confused about the general formatting. After I ended up watching the entire opening sequence, which really didn’t provide any statistics, background or concrete information, I slowly got the hang of it and was able to listen to a good amount of the interviews and audio recordings. One of the first things that seemed most prevalent and important in a project like this, was its inherent anonymity. For obvious privacy and safety reasons, these prisoners would never be outwardly named, and this automatically distances the source of the content from the reader. However, the fact that their voices are included, the actual, live, recorded interview, gives a human warmness to the cold, one-lined snippets that are on the screen, that give the first impression of the voice behind the moving text boxes. This is revolutionary in terms of genre, and while this is not a conventional work of literature, you could, in every way, argue that this text would classify as “literary,” due to the written components attached to every interview that explicitly dictate exactly what was said in the interview. A genre that is able to reach readers so graphically without a personal visual image says a lot about the fluidity of genre.
Another poignant element to Daniel’s work had to do, for me,
with rhetorical velocity. Each line from
the text seemed to be an exhausted cry for help, “I guess I wasn’t worthy of
protecting” and “The state of emergency in which we live is not the exception
but the rule.” These are the exigence to which Daniels was responding. These quiet calls for help from the walls of
these women’s prisons were exactly what she was responding to. Rhetorical velocity requires a force, an
energy that calls an “author” (“Author”?) to respond. Without it, the social strides that
literature has enforced, the claims that rhetoricians have come to define,
theorize, and in some aspects, live by, all this would become stagnant. Rhetorical velocity is the pull that forced
Daniel to give these women a voice and respond to their blanketed exigencies.
I definitely agree with your take on Daniel's project. The text is useful in defining genre, hypertextuality and rhetorical velocity. Out of these three you have discussed, I see your case for rhetorical velocity as the strongest. Daniel's text is not a work to just be read for enjoyment and said a side, but calls for an almost unavoidable response. I feel as though if you are a human being with emotions you are required to be affected by the project and called to act. Your example of the women's cries for help is a perfect example of how Daniels is using rhetorical techniques to expedite the rhetorical velocity of her campaign.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you incorporate the term rhetorical velocity in your post. I was beginning to forget the term and it really brought it back into the picture for me. There was one thing that caught my attention, and I feel like a hypocrite because I made a similar mistake, I really missed some in text citations. Also think about Killingsworth a little more. He has much to offer that you only just touched on.
ReplyDelete“This auditory and visual, along with a more background kinetic (mouse traction), connection allows the reader to step outside of conventional and literary definitions of genre, rhetorical velocity, and hypertext, simply because this “text” communicates with and connects to so many different areas of the reader’s psyche.”
ReplyDelete--This statement confuses me a little because doesn’t this “text” exemplify what a hypertext is? A hypertext is meant to communicate and connect to many different areas of the reader’s psyche depending on the approach it takes. Not only that but there aren’t really any follow up claims to defend this bold statement in your post. It sounds like a really nice thesis statement but it doesn’t really hold up in this blog post. You begin to address it but don’t fully explore it.
““The state of emergency in which we live is not the exception but the rule.” These are the exigence to which Daniels was responding. “
--I completely agree with this statement. The ‘state of emergency’ was her motivation to complete her purpose, to respond to the exigence.
“The state of emergency in which we live is not the exception but the rule.” These are the exigence to which Daniels was responding. These quiet calls for help from the walls of these women’s prisons were exactly what she was responding to. Rhetorical velocity requires a force, an energy that calls an “author” (“Author”?) to respond. Without it, the social strides that literature has enforced, the claims that rhetoricians have come to define, theorize, and in some aspects, live by, all this would become stagnant. Rhetorical velocity is the pull that forced Daniel to give these women a voice and respond to their blanketed exigencies.
---This part confuses me in the sense that at first you say that it’s because of exigence that she’s responding but then you say it’s because of rhetorical velocity. You don’t make a distinction between what is rhetorical velocity and exigence therefore making it seem like they are the same thing when they’re not. For example, how is a “pull” different than something that one must respond to?
After failing to make a distinction you try to relate it to the “social strides that literature has enforced” has me completely lost. How is that relevant?
In total it seems like you were going in the right direction in the beginning with the thesis but then the essay started to break itself up into ideas that strayed away and didn’t support the thesis as well as they should have.
I agree with you in that Daniel's project produced a heavy message due to the fluidity and strength of the genre. You made a great point by showing why the text came to life in bridging the gap between the 'cold text' and the 'warmth' of the emotion behind it that came through in the audio recordings. The rhetorical velocity that manifested was indeed due to the fact that the genre was so inclusive of the senses - it both encompassing and moving. Sucked you in by connecting you with the message on a personal level and moved you through the sympathy that could be felt through the voices.
ReplyDelete