Rhetoric Online Chapter 5 : Innertextuality

Vote 0 Votes

Wow, I must say , I've never really come across such a big DUH-moment in my life when it comes to rhetorical theory. I mean , basing one piece of rhetoric on another , drawing on its themes, implications, and its almost guaranteed exposure to make a point in another piece of rhetoric, that's always been something I've been aware of. But Warnick and Heineman really took the extra step here by analytically describing, terming it (or at least describing the people who termed it) . Frankly, I completely agree with them that innertexuality is everywhere, and it has been everywhere all the time. It gives literature , actually all of rhetoric in general, a sense of connection, and this connection is completely unrestricted. I mean, if someone could connect two things such as 1984 to IBM and Macintosh, then all bets are off.
And with the dawn of hypertext, this has only grown in importance and presence, if even possible for it to become any more present. I mean, i see it now, all the multi-million viewed youtube vidoes are almost guaranteed to be quoted , and everyone would understand the joke/quote. In fact, memes are a great example of that, in my opinion. iconic moments in movies are truly made legend through the constant reinvention of catchy one-liners, whats better , anyone can make a meme, and everyone will get it (if you do it right).
So basically, I really liked this chapter . It brought something very prevalent, yet subtle in rhetoric and throw it in my face. However, I do think that the two authors could have expanded on how innertextuality manifests here and now, especially since this book was republished in 2012.


| Leave a comment

Thanks for the thoughful post, Yohanna. I'm still not sure if you mean the article was a "well, duh!" moment, as in, "Do people really get paid to write this stuff?" Or if you meant a "duh" moment, as in, "cool--that stuff makes sense, and I never thought of it that way before." I think maybe a bit more of the latter than the former? Either way, I'm glad your digging in to the text. Thanks!

no. i totally meant it as a " oh wow, this is really cool. I see this all the time, but i never stopped to really think about it" kinda thing.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I find it's a pretty thin line for me between "aha" and "well duh." not sure why that is, but I think it's got something to do with the explanatory power of a particular lens. It helps us see things that were right in front of us, but once we see them and look the second time, it feels like we saw them all the time. At least, that's the way I seem to react to certain theories.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by rizkx008 published on March 4, 2013 3:34 PM.

Agreed, but with a disclaimer was the previous entry in this blog.

Is Web-based Discourse Different than Print Discourse? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.