theory as a sport

Fish, Grant-Davie, and Geisler et al—Readings of week one

First I might like to say that reading the first reading, by Fish, is much like playing a game of tackle football. It is so strong and dense and leaves you curled up on the playing field asking yourself "wtf?!"—much of which could be argued for most theory text. As I read Fish, I wondered for someone who is 20^th century—and therefore not entirely “old school”, he seemed to derive quite a lot of his conclusions from much older inspiration. This officially hit me when he begins discussing the prototype for serious man vs. rhetorical man. “Rhetorical man manipulates reality, establishing through his word the imperatives and urgencies to which he and his fellows must respond, he manipulates or fabricates himself, simultaneously conceiving of and occupying the roles that become first possible and then mandatory given the social structure of his rhetoric has put in place…” (127). In this passage I cannot help but think of the courtiers in a court during the 16^th century and how they used wit (or was it really rhetoric) to manipulate their positions in regard to the kings they served? These courtiers were loud and boisterous with full intention to be noticed and then utilizing rhetoric (obviously their wit) to persuade the Kings that they were likable and in fact were certainly only acting in accordance of manipulation and for their audience.

The next reading, Grant-Davie, seemed a lot less like a contact sport and more like a game I’d just never played before, but quickly the rules unfold and it became easier and easier to engage in. One passage that gained my intrigue right off the bat—pun intended—is that “rhetors not only answer the question, they also ask it” (265). This demonstrates to me just how much control and thought it takes to play the game of rhetoric. They know about this insider-secret and use it to drive their point home to their audiences or in Grant-Davies terms constituents.  However, the further you delve into their arguments the webs of rhetoric become more and more complicated and intertwined until you realize rhetoric is everywhere and almost inescapable—and then Fish begins to make more sense and realize you can play contact rhetoric too!

The last piece written by Geisler et al was like trying to play something like World of War Craft.  Can it really be considered a game at all? It utilizes technology and a TON of repetition and feels a lot like that movie Rollerball—you know that terrible movie about a futuristic sport that they are enslaved to and use rhetorical situations to persuade and control the audience that watches—if you haven’t seen it, I wouldn’t waste your time and if you have seen it then I’m sorry. Perhaps, Running Man is a better example? Anyway…I did think it was interesting that it argues because Rhetoric is a design it needs to be ethical—which seems appropriate for more contemporary times and in the frame of today’s society. The readings seemed to be in some sort of chronological order to me, but beyond that it also is in some sort of contextual order for deriving conclusions and making connections. Doug, how rhetorical of you :)