Throughout this essay, Killingsworth's aim is to give tropes more weight. "My aim in expanding the number of tropes a little beyond metaphor is to give a sense of the variety of functions and kinds of appeals that tropes make possible at the level of word and phrase" (Killingsworth, 127). If one was to treat a trope as a form for example, the value and worth of the concept of a "trope" diminishes since you're giving the power to the concept of "form". For example, it's like saying that "well trope is nothing but a form, so let's focus on that;What makes up a form makes up a trope." Trope should be treated differently than a form since they are not the same thing. Both "form" and "trope" have similarities, but they're not the same.
Tropes can most definitely enhance the art involved in a piece. For example, an understanding of metonymy would help one's greater understanding of the text of Moby Dick. "The symbolic use in the novel gives it cognitive dimension, it's important place in human thinking as well as in rhetoric" (Killingsworth, 129). The use of tropes can also take away the art from a piece if not used correctly as well. Just because they could enhance the art, does not mean that they should just be called "art for art's sake". Yes, it's an art that one must master to help reach one's goal or purpose with a piece. But it's not just limited to artistic pieces. Because it's not limited to only artistic pieces, it shouldn't be referred to "art for art's sake" since it can have the same effect in a completely different piece, unless one was to argue that any piece that involves a trope is artistic.
In a way, Killingsworth's essay reminds me of Landow's essay, "Hypertext and Critical Theory" because of how it breaks down the "trope" and then applies it to different situations. It's similar to how Landow breaks down the understanding of what is hypertext and how we can use it. Like Landow, Killingsworth is making a "big deal" (out of tropes). Both help the reader advance how they look at things, which helps give them a greater understanding.
This greater understanding from Landow can help make Daniel's hypertext essay, "Public Secrets" especially interpretable as a critique. Because it's a hypertext it "permits one to make explicit, though not necessarily intrusive, the linked materials that an educated reader perceives surrounding it" (Landow, 35). Not only that but because it's a hypertext, it allows for a certain decentering that allows for the reader to gain a stronger hold over what they're reading. Daniel made her piece this way in order to allow for a larger audience and greater understanding of her purpose. A larger audience because of how accessible the internet is. How "hypertext" is used in this case helps enhance the interpretability and Daniel's purpose just like how Killingsworth's understanding of "tropes" help enhance the interpretability and purpose of another piece.
Is it the hypertext (the format of the essay) that makes Daniel’s audience understand that this is a critique or is it the information within the text that gives us the understanding that it is a critique?
ReplyDeleteI am have to admit that the usage of the hypertext for Daniel’s essay did make her point more valid and was a type of emotional amplification, which Longinus does state is a way to express the sublime. However, do you think that this medium was the only thing that lead to understanding the critique or can there be any more persuasive mediums for Daniel to have used to express her exigence?
Personally I believe that the content is the most important aspect of any argument, because without it there would be no argument. Also even after reading the editor’s note previously before looking into her essay it was her introduction that made it understandable that this essay was a critique. However, you have made a valid point could there have been any other medium that could evoke the same intentions the Daniel wanted.
This medium of hypertext allows her audience to flow freely picking a choosing what they want to here. They even can skip the introduction to the essay if they wanted to. It gives the audience free choice, “you don’t have to listen if you don’t want to”. This almost makes the audience want to listen because the author gave the courtesy for them to skip. There is no forcefulness behind this essay, a film could not have done this because it is a medium that has a certain kind of progression that it has to follow, a narrative to make any sense. Also an essay can be tedious and would have been filled with facts, and could not have carried the emotional tension in the voices of the women as the sound bites on the hypertext did.
I have to agree with the fact that this medium was a perfect way for Daniel to create her essay. My one question for you though which I do not have time to answer is, do you think that her exigence will lead to her audience to take social action because of the leniency of her essay, or do you think that it makes more people want to listen because it is not forced upon them?