Book Reviews
Issue 36.2 Fall 2008
| HTML Printer-Friendly Format | PDF|
Out of Style: Reanimating Stylistic Study in Composition and Rhetoric, by Paul Butler. Logan: Utah State UP, 2008. 194 pp.
Reviewed by Tara Lockhart, San Francisco State University
In Out of Style: Reanimating Stylistic Study in Composition and Rhetoric, Paul Butler considers the relative absence of style both within the classroom and within the field’s theoretical conversations. He contends that two faulty premises are to blame for this lack: first, style has been wrongfully associated with the part of composition history some call current-traditional-rhetoric, and second, style has been misunderstood as the opposite of rhetorical invention. In each case, style has been jettisoned from nearly all contemporary discussions of composition theory and practice. The result, Butler claims, is the loss of both a significant body of work and significant resources for composition.
To be clear, Butler’s working definition of style combines rhetorical awareness, compositional choice, and habitual patterns manifested at the level of the sentence, although he notes that stylistic effects often extend to larger sections of discourse. This definition allows Butler to move beyond narrow conceptions of style as either fully unique or as naturally organic—able to be controlled solely by the author or outside of her ability to consciously shape—definitions which create unproductive binaries inadequate to describe how and why style works. Instead, Out of Style offers a historical context that charts and attempts to explain style’s disappearance. Beginning with classical rhetoric and moving through contemporary composition theory, Butler outlines the definitions and debates that have attempted to pinpoint stylistics and, in so doing, rewrites the history of style into a more cogent and consistent narrative. In this way, Out of Style acts as a useful primer on stylistics and its interaction with rhetoric, linguistics, and writing pedagogy.
The most interesting context provided is what Butler deems the “Golden Age” of stylistic pedagogies (1960s to the mid-1980s). Within this period, he locates a range of stylistically-oriented theory and practice championed by scholars as diverse as Edward P. J. Corbett, Richard Young, W. Ross Winterowd, and Richard Lanham. By paying close attention to this period, Butler works from a familiar historiographic viewpoint to argue that in differentiating ourselves from previous movements within the field we often select particular emphases to remember—while reducing, limiting, or forgetting other parts of our history. Specifically, Butler contends that in imagining itself beyond the heyday of process-oriented pedagogies, the field of composition has misremembered a portion of its history and, as a result, has woefully left behind a rich repertoire of stylistic pedagogies that have been neither fully theorized nor fully implemented for classroom use.
If the first three chapters provide a historical summary of style’s drifts and resurfacings, the second part of the book analyzes this history in terms of Composition’s representation of itself and its interests. Butler’s primary objective in chapters 4 through 6 is to identify the sites where style still exists. Borrowing a term from Janice Lauer, Butler uses chapter 4 to examine the “diaspora” that style has made within the field. He discusses the ways that style has migrated—usually with little acknowledgement—into other areas of composition: genre studies, rhetorical analysis, personal writing, and the study of difference (including differences of culture, race, class, and gender). Butler contends that recognizing the presence of style in these arenas not only acknowledges important work that is already happening, but could also encourage greater use of stylistic analysis which would, in turn, strengthen the theoretical relevance and the persuasive appeal of each of these sub-fields.
Chapter 5 moves outside academia to examine style’s inclusion in public discourse. It is particularly pressing for composition scholars to take the reins from the “public intellectuals” who Butler identifies as shaping the popular discourse that reduces style to questions of grammar and syntax. The exigency that largely drives Out of Style is located here: scholars within the field must wrest back the discussion of style so that students, educators, and the public at large might see the usefulness of stylistics beyond grammatical and syntactical correctness. Moreover, the field and its scholars can then speak with thoughtful authority back to those voices that have too long limited the terms of the discussion.
Butler models this move toward shaping the public discourse in the closing section of chapter 5 when he responds formally to Stanley Fish, Louis Menand, and Heather Mac Donald—the three “public intellectuals” he criticizes for their narrow and ill-informed representations of composition—by countering their claims and situating his own arguments about writing within an approachable and contemporary theoretical framework. At the close of this chapter, Butler illustrates how compositionists might answer challenges and articulate their own researched positions in response. If, instead, we as a field remain silent or respond only within our professional spheres, Butler contends that we will continue to cede our authority and expertise to those voices that conflate style with prescriptive grammar—and rally publics to demand an educational return to such decontextualized and ineffective practices.
In several places, then, Out of Style registers an activist tone. Along these lines, one of Butler’s most interesting connections is between style and the well-known document “Students’ Right to Their Own Language” authored by the Committee on CCCC Language in 1974. In defending students’ use of multiple variations of language, this statement offers a view of style and stylistic study that Butler deems both “explicit” and “innovative,” yet it has remained largely untouched. The “Students’ Right” document provides another example of a call for style within the field which might be better exploited; the attention to and analysis of style allows us to better determine how particular effects were achieved in writing that moves between genres, registers, or discourses. As Butler puts it, “I argue that the use of style is what reveals how the border becomes blurred” between multiple styles; therefore, stylistic analysis “illuminates the consequences of that blurring” (104).
Beyond such insights that punctuate this quite readable text, what is particularly useful and encouraging about Butler’s project is his agile modeling of stylistic analysis. Logical and clear, Butler performs convincing stylistic readings while simultaneously explaining (or reminding) his audience of terms such as anadiplosis and asyndeton. Whether his audience takes up the precise terminology seems beside the point: Butler hopes we’ll take away the central argument that attending to style allows both writers and readers to better understand how written texts mean as they do. Butler’s explications shore up the underlying current of the book which contends that even though style is often experienced implicitly, there is great power in making the workings of style visible, explicit, and thus available for both teaching and learning. This is an important point, as Butler clearly not only wants to make stylistic resources available for writing students, but also for writing teachers. Broadening and deepening our understanding of style, he contends, is essential not only for strengthening our students’ repertoires but also for enriching our own knowledge and work—as well as better representing our discipline and our research to broader publics.
Butler’s recommendation, then, is to use style as a fulcrum which can help composition scholars pry open a space and insert ourselves more centrally within public discourse, clarifying the terms and contexts of public debates concerning writing (e.g., unlinking style from its problematic conflation with prescriptive grammar), making recommendations based on our expertise, and thereby garnering greater respect for our field and our work. The text closes with this call to action, encouraging compositionists to reshape style in ways that are meaningful to them and to the field. As promised in the book’s title, Butler succeeds in taking the first steps toward reanimating the conversation concerning stylistics and the teaching of style—topics to further investigate theoretically, rhetorically, and pedagogically. Since Butler’s stated focus and interest is clearly on the operations of style at the sentence level, this work opens the door for further research concerning the ways that style ripples outward from the sentence to larger sections of discourse.
Similarly, in offering analyses and critiques of the way several “public intellectuals” have portrayed composition in the larger public sphere, Out of Style prompts additional attention to the ways in which composition scholars and others related to—or interested in—style might be productively identified, owned, and persuaded to act as public intellectuals. Butler argues convincingly that we can no longer afford to be left out: we must increase our credibility by confronting and responding to discussions of style in the public sphere, offering our expertise as a valuable corrective, and establishing our field as central to the debates about writing that continue to interest the public. By reclaiming stylistic study and clearly articulating its value to audiences both within and outside the field, we will not only help writers—we will also construct our own greater voice in the dialogues and debates in which we are most implicated and invested.
San Francisco, California
