What do you think?
Rate this book
Novantiqua: Rhetorics as a Contemporary Theory
"This is an important original, erudite, useful and ambitious." ―Quarterly Journal of Speech
"A remarkable book . . . sure to be of lasting interest . . . to be reckoned with by all rhetorical theorists." ―Choice
This is the first contemporary attempt at a holistic theory of rhetoric, well grounded in the context of cultural and social history. Arguing that rhetoric has always been an independent, objective, essential factor in human interaction, Valesio views it as coextensive with human speech in use.
"A remarkable book . . . sure to be of lasting interest . . . to be reckoned with by all rhetorical theorists." ―Choice
This is the first contemporary attempt at a holistic theory of rhetoric, well grounded in the context of cultural and social history. Arguing that rhetoric has always been an independent, objective, essential factor in human interaction, Valesio views it as coextensive with human speech in use.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1980
1 person is currently reading
24 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 29, 2020
In this review I will call the reader's attention to some of the driving issues that motivated the author to produce this somewhat unusual work.
Let's begin with the focal point: the rhetor. Who is the rhetor? Is it a job description? How do you apply for the position of rhetor?
The rhetor's primary objective as such is to produce discourse. Now it seems simple enough to say that most individual throughout the course of their daily lives produce discourse, comments, remarks, and so forth. But not really. That would be misleading, because the vast majority of people who speak lack any design or art when formulating their remarks. This then looks like a preliminary distinction between the rhetor and the non-rhetor. Ordinary people are non-rhetors. Rhetors exercises a specific type of capacity, the capacity to design and strategize what they are saying. In that sense, a rhetor may be analogously thought of as a military commander allocating resources in order to achieve goals or results.
The flipside of the rhetor is the active listener. If the rhetor encodes, the listener must decode. In this sense the rhetor is primarily responsible for establishing community with auditors. One is drawn into the community established by the rhetor when his or her messages are seen in a particular light. Auditors complete the rhetorical acts of rhetors. No rhetor imagines himself or herself responsible for a void in which words are lost as soon as they are spoken. The words must build up, edify and achiever results. Good luck Pastor Warnock.
Once a discourse becomes established it becomes the responsibility of the community to both sustain it and maintain it. For example, we can see very clearly that the Trump administration attempted a rhetorical high-jacking of liberal discourse, even though it shared important elements with that discourse. Liberal discourse is currently exhausted and is beginning to crumble due to its own absurdity. Raised on liberal discourse, many are now deserting it for something more flexible and more responsive to ongoing events.
To return now to Paolo Valesio's effort to share what his intentions are with his readers: "Every effort must be made to make rhetorical analysis a precise and scientifically sober tool." However the search for this type of sobriety is, he quickly admits, destined to fail because rhetoric itself, in its practical dimension, refuses to release itself for something like "pure objectivity."
Let's begin with the focal point: the rhetor. Who is the rhetor? Is it a job description? How do you apply for the position of rhetor?
The rhetor's primary objective as such is to produce discourse. Now it seems simple enough to say that most individual throughout the course of their daily lives produce discourse, comments, remarks, and so forth. But not really. That would be misleading, because the vast majority of people who speak lack any design or art when formulating their remarks. This then looks like a preliminary distinction between the rhetor and the non-rhetor. Ordinary people are non-rhetors. Rhetors exercises a specific type of capacity, the capacity to design and strategize what they are saying. In that sense, a rhetor may be analogously thought of as a military commander allocating resources in order to achieve goals or results.
The flipside of the rhetor is the active listener. If the rhetor encodes, the listener must decode. In this sense the rhetor is primarily responsible for establishing community with auditors. One is drawn into the community established by the rhetor when his or her messages are seen in a particular light. Auditors complete the rhetorical acts of rhetors. No rhetor imagines himself or herself responsible for a void in which words are lost as soon as they are spoken. The words must build up, edify and achiever results. Good luck Pastor Warnock.
Once a discourse becomes established it becomes the responsibility of the community to both sustain it and maintain it. For example, we can see very clearly that the Trump administration attempted a rhetorical high-jacking of liberal discourse, even though it shared important elements with that discourse. Liberal discourse is currently exhausted and is beginning to crumble due to its own absurdity. Raised on liberal discourse, many are now deserting it for something more flexible and more responsive to ongoing events.
To return now to Paolo Valesio's effort to share what his intentions are with his readers: "Every effort must be made to make rhetorical analysis a precise and scientifically sober tool." However the search for this type of sobriety is, he quickly admits, destined to fail because rhetoric itself, in its practical dimension, refuses to release itself for something like "pure objectivity."
Displaying 1 of 1 review