I know this will sound strange, and very probably it will sound inane, but the one statement that struck me about Klayton’s presentation was the fact that there was no picture of this monolithic man in the world of composition. I tried to ponder the effects of his work and his general place in the greater context of composition studies based on what I was presented with, but my mind kept kicking this idea back: “What does this guy look like?” The result of this completely trivial questioning was my mind’s creation of a fictional character that represented Klayton’s description: I picture Kinneavy as a Biblical figure in a white suit with a book raised in either hand trying to reunite the Red Sea of Composition and Rhetoric.
My odd imagery aside, I think that any man who attempts to create a unified theory of any realm of composition is noble, and based upon the context described by Klayton and added to by Dr. Souder, Kinneavy was attempting to patch a fairly extensive rift. I was intrigued enough about Klayton’s description of A Theory of Discourse that I had my wife to the library and checked out a copy; he takes care of me. The format is, as Klayton proposed, deceptively simple. The book is essentially an outline of his theory, which breaks down the various forms of discourse, and it presents a web explaining how each form overlaps.
As far as the presentation, I enjoyed Klayton’s impassioned attempt to relate Kinneavy’s life and influence to practical history. It is one thing to watch someone pontificate their various views of an abstract concept, but to see a complex theory explored in its relation to real history is an enjoyable experience. Because no review of a performative act can be critiqued with praise alone, I would point to a matter that would have made the understanding of the presentation slightly easier. I would have liked to see Klayton’s initial points regarding Kinneavy in text; I know this sounds elementary, but I like follow a speaker’s logic more clearly if I can read what they are describing, and while the second half of the presentation was supported by a visual chart I could follow, the fist half would have been further clarified.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks, Tony! I posted more information on Kinneavy that I wasn't able to get to in my presentation, but which helps clarify my overall ambivalence regarding Kinneavy's work.
ReplyDeleteThat thought had never occurred to me, but now that you mention it, it is quite curious that a man so revered and influential has no photographic evidence "out there" for the general public to view. It's as though he never even existed. I had a picture of myself posted on the web (by I still don't know who) before there was even a myspace. I googled my name and there it was (and not a very flattering picture, I might add), so where is this man? Are we left to canonize him in our thoughts as a great bearded man hovering in the sky?
ReplyDeleteI had a plan to go out and get the book as well. It seemed like all of the things that Klayton reviewed in his presentation would be made more simple if I read the book. It seemed like a lot of Kinneavy's ideas were fairly complex. Too complex, one might say, to squeeze into the allotted time.
p.s. But I agree that a few more visuals of the actual ideas would have made the presentation a little easier to follow.
ReplyDeleteTony,
ReplyDeleteI, too, would have to agree with both you and Emily that it does seem strange that such a significant character in composition and rhetoric would have no public photographs, especially considering how photo-obsessed we, as a society, have become (one of my history professors once stated that out of all the historical time periods thus far in history the twentieth century is the most well documented thanks to photography). Indeed, it is truly bizarre that this prominent man, who published so extensively and attended numerous conferences, would lack such a trivial aspect as a photograph. The again, the mere fact that all three of us have noticed this minuscule fact in comparison to Kinneavy’s momentous theories says quite a lot about how reliant we’ve become on photographic and other visual evidence. We, as a society, have become so accustomed to the concept of photographs being part of a human’s existence that the absence of one calls into question the individuals very reality (as Emily put it: “it's as though he never even existed”).
Thomas