Reviews for Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies

The average rating for Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies based on 2 reviews is 2 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-11-06 00:00:00 Klaus Anderson I don't even know where to start telling you how much I hated reading this steaming pile of garbage. Starring the Text is the kind of "book" that makes people decide to drop out of university. It's the sort of identity-crisis enducing empty big-brain jabbering that can only be produced by someone who hasn't left their office for at least half a century. I started out reading this book trying to wrap your head around all these big words, all these intricate sentences, only to discover that this is probably the least coherent, demented jargon-indulging shitshow I've come across since reading Judith Butler: We can account for referential presence sub specie rhetoricae, but can we account for its taxonomic transformation? We can if we can show how statistical inference, naming, and artitistic rendering create the persuasive structures that transform referential into taxonomical presence. I don't even care to look for a deeper meaning to this mumbojumbo because I'm just too busy being disgusted by this self-satisfied nonsense. Read this last paragraph once again, because if you read it carefully enough you will be able to see through time and space how Alan mate sits in his office and pats himself on the shoulder: "Splendidly executed, Alan, terrific notion to "artistically render" a simple thought into an impenetrably complex sentence." This is a book on RHETORIC for Christ's sake. Ol' mate here even laments in the beginning of his "book" how there are so many great scientists who are just impossible to listen to. Newsflash: you're projecting bruh. My central insight concerning priority, an insight that organizes this paper, is borrowed form sociology, not earned by rhetoric. But so serependipitous a relationship between sociological and rhetorical analysis is in my view an instance of a more general kinship of two allied disciplines between which a division of labor obtains: sociology still deals with the structural determinants of social conditions, rhetoric with their symbolic interaction in the sphere of social action. Imagine using so many words to say so little. Alan mate basically tells us that sociology is concerned with the study of society and rhetoric with the way this society chooses to express itself. Wow. Incredible. Revolutionary. At another point Alan mate uses an entire chapter to analyse and compare Darwin's Notebooks and the final version of Origins to come with the most stunning big-brain conclusion you will likely hear this decade (I paraphrase): I ran a rhetorical analysis and by the incredible big-brain power that has been bestowed upon me I have come to the following conlusion: In his notebook, Darwin uses a rhetoric where he tries to only convince himself of his idea; whereas in Origins he uses a language to address and presuade an audience of his idea. Wow. Holy fuckin jumpin shitballs. Has anyone ever told Alan mate what notebooks are for? They are there to keep notes. Usually for oneself. Not usually intended for publication. That's the whole idea with a notebook. You don't speak to anyone else other than (arguably) your future self. And yes, in a book you usually speak to others. And yes, you will probably use a different language there than in a notebook where you quickly jot down some notes. Want another banger? We may be inclined to say that the scientific content of texts can be paraphrased because they contain a core of meaning, but just the reverse is the case: the core of meaning is what we paraphrase consistenty. This is the kind of quote that usually makes you stop and put down the book. You think about it, realize it's brilliant and move on, now with a better understanding of what the author is trying to say. This though. This is just nonsense. I read this yesterday. I've thought about it three times now and I think this really just is the Judean People's Front in disguise. I mean. I'm just so upset with how full this guy is of himself. i hAvE eMpLoYeD a rHeToRiCaL aNaLySis. Like, I have honestly never read anything more common-sensical expressed in a less penetrable language than this "book." All in all, this entire "book" could have been spurted out of one of those post-modernism bullshit generators and I would have literally not noticed a difference: If one examines precultural dialectic theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject social realism or conclude that the significance of the reader is deconstruction. But the primary theme of Abian's[1] model of Marxist socialism is not narrative, as Bataille would have it, but subnarrative. The characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is a self-fulfilling whole. The subject is interpolated into a social realism that includes consciousness as a paradox. In a sense, Baudrillard uses the term 'Lacanist obscurity' to denote the paradigm, and subsequent defining characteristic, of postmodern class. Honestly, simply based on the rhetoric, it would be impossible to decide whether these two paragraphs were from Gross's "book" Starring the Text or from the academic BS generator. You might wonder why I went through the trouble of reading let alone writing this review. Well, I had to read this book. It was mandatory. I am so upset that words cannot even get close to do my disgust any justice. But actions speak louder than words. First of all, I am convinced that venting my anger is a safe strategy to prevent the semi-suicidal thoughts this "book" has caused to come to fruition. Further, as an additional preventive step, I have given the matter a long thought and decided to open a brandnew trashcan shelf which shall only ever be filled by this "book." Also, apologies if I have forgotten to add quotation marks to the word book at any point of this review.

Review # 2 was written on 2009-06-10 00:00:00 Brandon Quist Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies by Alan G. Gross (2006)