Gutter Talk Joshua

Gutter Talk: (An)Other Idiom of Rhetoric
Author(s): Joshua C. Hilst

Source: JAC, Vol. 31, No. 1/2 (2011), pp. 153-176
Published by: JAC
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866989 .
Accessed: 27/01/2015 05:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
JAC is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to JAC.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 14.139.196.4 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:41:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gutter Talk:
(An)Other Idiom of Rhetoric
Joshua C. Hilst
Iwill speak, therefore,of a letter
Derrida
?Jacques
Wi,h
due deferencetoDerrida, Iwill speak, therefore,

of a gutter.Not
the space
at the edge of the street where wastewater
and trash flow,
I am speakingof a wholly different

although theanalogy is interesting.
gutter. I am speaking about the space in between panels on the pages of

a comic book. The artist places the drawings inside of a panel, and then
another set of drawings in another panel. Between these two panels we
typicallyfinda blank space, knowntoartistsandwritersof comics as the
the viewer reads the panels of a comics page, he or she

gutter. When
sees
some
sort of progression between the panels. For instance,
typically
not to be too morbid, suppose a villain charges a victim (see Figure 1), then
in the next panel, a large voice bubble appears featuring an onomatopoetic
version of a guttural scream.
Figure 1
jac
31.1-2(2011)

154
jac
The viewerwould likelyassume thatthevictimhas justdied.Why should
we assume
any such thing?

uses precisely
Scott McCloud
about comics,"
Understanding
in his theoretical "comic
this example
Comics.
McCloud
(in Figures
2 and 3)
says:
Figure2
see
^\
THAT SPACE
X
&?ZWe&V
the \
PANELS? THAT'S
\
/
WHAT COMICS
AFICIONADOS HAVE/
NAMED
S /
**^Gwrre&r
_
AND
DESPITE^X.
y
its N
/
/ T/Tte, THE GUTTEffPLAYS
[ HOSTTO MUCH. OF THEAMG/C
THAT ARE
V ANDMXS7&ry
J
AT THE VEKyy%55*>P7"
V
Figure3
Similar toRene Magritte?who remindedus of the infidelity

of images
when he asserted "this is not a pipe"?McCloud
reminds his readers that
when we look at two panels, we have seen absolutely nothing that can
safely be cal led a progression. No murder takes place in the panels shown,

155
JoshuaC. Hilst
and inclinations of themind. The mind takes these

only themachinations
two panels and construes a relationship between them. In order to perform
such an operation, themind must close out the gutter (an operation called
"closure," oddly enough).1 When themind provides closure, itconstructs
a relationship between the panels?a
relationship the eye never actually
sees. The operation is performed continually while the eyes peruse the
panels of the comic. Without this operation of closure, no story occurs,
to state that, in one definite sense, "Comics
is
which
leads McCloud
closure"
(67).
I argue, is to read the rhetorics of paralogy

is necessary,
across
how comics embody paralogy
idiomatically
comics?specifically,
through the gutter.2As a form of linking-/ogos, paralogy takes itscue from
What
Jean-Fran9ois Lyotard: "It is necessary to link, but themode of linkage is

never necessary"
(Differend 29). In this spirit, I read these rhetorics
through three other paralogic theorists: Todd Taylor, Victor Vitanza, and
Cynthia
Haynes.
But, first we need a word
about paralogy.
Although
difficult to define, Lyotard puts forthparalogy (principally inThe
Postmodern
renewing
Condition)
old language
Lyotard, paralogy
as a way of breaking up master narratives?

to
games through new meanings. According
is
[A] power thatdestabilizes thecapacity forexplanation, manifested

in the promulgation of new norms for understanding or, ifone
prefers, in a proposal to establish new rules circumscribing a new
field of research for the language of science. (Postmodern 61)
Lyotard deploys paralogies here in the context of science, both

Vitanza and Thomas Kent utilize the concept in the province of rhetoric.3
My aim is to situate paralogy inside the gutter, and thereby trouble the
Whereas
of both a monologic mystery. Identifying an

idiom of rhetoric that cuts up master narratives, that breaks up totalities
conversation
that has made
I put forth a "slasher rhetoric." My offering will show

(see Davis),
?s most useful to the discipline
where
of rhetoric and
paralogy
composition, where unspoken assumptions
suggest that scholars must
do one or the other: rhetoric or composition. The gutter shows how we
possess both?as Cynthia Haynes renders it,rhetoric/Slash/composition
("Rhetoric").

156
jac
In Negation,
Subjectivity, and the History

of Rhetoric, Vitanza
us
new
to
"redescribe
idioms"
(33). My argument
enjoins
perpetually using
answers the call by proposing an idiom designed to reconfigure how we
teach and practice rhetoric?the gutter.Working out of Lyotard, as does
Vitanza, I take a similar view of the idiom as more than a certain language,
or style, or vocabulary. The gutter provides an (un)grounding for another
with (un)groundinginan efforttodelay

way of thinking.Itoccupies itself
any "final day of rest," and moreover,
to ensure "no final point of stasis"
for thinkingabout rhetoric(Vitanza 72). Forging connectionsbetween

what
various
theorists of rhetoric have

blank
space
gutter?that
theorists whose
of the comic?I
said about
paralogy and the

take a walk with our three
singular attempts to un-rest rhetoric resonate well with/

in the gutter. Taylor, Vitanza, and Haynes all emphasize paralogy, as well
as find new ways to connect our work in rhetoric and composition. As
rhetorical inventors, they serve as ideal traveling companions for thiswalk,

which will not be a stroll on the street, but in the gutter, a trajectory I think
my companions would appreciate. First we will see parallels between their
work and the work that goes on in the gutter. Next, I provide a few brief
examples from thework of Frank Miller. Finally, I suggest themanner in
idiom works, as well as some effects of such gutter
talk in rhetorical criticism and practice.
which
this rhetorical
Three
Traveling
Companions
Todd Taylor addresses the paralogical aspects of ethos in his essay, "If
He Catches You, You're Through: Coyotes and Visual Ethos." Taylor
argues for a far more visual than textual ethos, based on cues picked up
by seeing and not seeing, or better yet, seeing and ignoring. Centering his
conversation on the Looney Tunes characters, Wile E. Coyote and the
Roadrunner, he presents each. Anyone fami 1iarwith them 1ikely knows the
of the Coyote, as opposed to the
We sympathize with the Coyote
characterization. We come to such conclusions,
disheveled
more
and distraught appearance

cheery look of the Roadrunner.
through his pathetic

Taylor tells us, through "blindness,
which
"determines
what we
'see'
thatwhich we do not literally see,"

as much as that which consciously

Joshua C. Hilst
157
(46). "Once we recognize thatwe merely glimpse

small fragments of what we thinkwe see," he continues, "the extrapola
tion, the guesswork thatwe use to complete the rest of the picture grows
dominates
our vision"
increasingly important" (47). Our "moments of greatest blindness," Paul

de Man reminded us, "are also themoments at which [we] achieve [our]
greatest insight" (109). Put yet another way, Kenneth Burke famously
"A way of seeing is a way of not seeing" (70). In short, the
viewer must do a great deal of guesswork to fill in the rest of the picture.
observed:
Taylor most directly addresses Thomas Kent's application of paralogy

to rhetoric. Kent's theory is based principally on thework of philosopher
Donald Davidson
(as opposed to Vitanza's more Lyotardian concept of
paralogy), where Davidson "resists the idea that discourse can be codified
inmeaningful ways because it is such a complicated paralogic hermeneu
tical dance" (Kent 58). The reason for this resistance lies inthe guesswork
according toKent: "When we guess, we shiftground
inorder to convey information or decipher information, and
inherent indiscourse,
linguistically
that allows us to shiftground relies on paralogical elements

of language use" (40). These paralogical elements involve both intuition
and taste, towhich Taylor adds seeing?that
is, seeing that also does
the guesswork
not
see.
Taylor refers to the visual aspects of rhetoric thatwe miss, but that
nevertheless
inform us, as paralogical.
In similar fashion, viewers com
plete the story of comics panels as they read, filling inwhatever action is
is correct: we read
interpreted as being there.4 So, then, Scott McCloud
across
the panels,
the eye providing closure inorder to interpret the story.

the gutter represents a space that,
Hence, comics is closure. However,
like Kent's conception, cannot be codified. Taylor conceives ethos as a
similar kind of guesswork: "Psychologically, we broadcast our gaze within
the limited range of our instruments, and thatwhich registers, thatwhich
returns a blip on our screen, defines not only our field of vision but also the
itself. That which does and does not register . . .
us
makes
who we are" (52). Although Taylor limits his argument to ethos,
Iwould expand this concept of
paralogy to include the gutter. The gutter
is an uncodifiable space, and the panels
help to hold our will-to-codify at
nature of our vision
bay. In an effort to read from panel to panel, certain paths, or jumps from
panel to panel, must be taken. However, what the gutter does not show us

158
jac
the panels do show us. The gutter is, as Taylor argues,

not so much unseen as it is ignored. This first concept of paralogy should
show us that the ignored is often the determinant of the perceived.
determines what
we find a second conception of the gutter?specifically,

excess. Vitanza's
project more closely follows Lyotard's own conception
InVitanza
of paralogy, as previously mentioned. Paralogy is a means of breaking up

master narratives through generating new forms through new linkages. In
Vitanza
is all about?'just
argues, "This is what paralogy
Negation,
not rules, precedes consensus"
linking.' For Lyotard,paralogy,
(42). In
this case, the linkages refer to Lyotard's privileging of parataxis over
syntaxis or hypotaxis. Parataxis is, of course, the rhetorical technique of
arranging,
side by side, simple
sentences without
conjunctions.
The
purpose is to further
Lyotard's projectof overturningnegation (also an
important theme of Vitanza's
connotes the abyss ofNot-Being
thus
book). Lyotard writes, "Parataxis
which opens between phrases, itstresses
the surprise that something begins when what is said is said" (66). Vitanza
works toward a denegative function that brings inwhat he terms, "the
excluded third,"working out ofMichel Serres' formulation that a dialogue
a third term and then excludes
it.This third term,
always presupposes
which Lyotard's paralogy also acknowledges
through the abyss of Not
of noise"
Being, is a term of excess, or what Serres cal Is that "prosopopeia
(67). The classical
form of dialectic
and Serres?to
to
is designed precisely?according
exclude a third term of excess because
Lyotard, Vitanza,
of its role in fostering doubt about certainty and finality. Vitanza under
stands the excluded third as pivotal in themove to delay a final point of rest.
In his influential "Three Countertheses,"
Vitanza claims that paralogy
bears witness "to the unintelligible or to disputes or differences of opinion
thatare systematically
disallowed by thedominantlanguagegame" (146).
itdoes not simply make theweaker argument the stronger, but

a
radical heterogeneity of discourses over" a dominant single
"favor[s]
or
a homogenous
In other words, such
discourse,
group of discourses.
Moreover,
continual overturnings and denegations may be seen as ways of ensuring

that no discourse
is excluded: paralogy is a passage for excess. Vitanza
works to bring all the excess back into the conversation.
If a successful reading of a comics
The gutter is similarly excessive.
one
over
that steps
the gutter and connects two dissimilar panels,
page is

159
Joshua C. Hilst
itcan only do so by canceling out that same space, the abyss. Panels, like
the ones shown in Figure 1, can actually show the viewer no action, and
itwould be strange, indeed,
yet we may still perceive a narrative. While
to suggest thatwhat takes place in the panels (logos) is unimportant, we
cannot fail to acknowledge
the excess (para/logos) that the panels cover,
and the operation of closure that predicates "successful"
readings. The
operation of closure bears a decided similarity to the dialogue that closes
out the third term, the prosopopeia
of noise. The excluded term makes
as
the viewer pieces together the various panels of the story.
itself felt
Paratactically, the gutter continually opens up and allows the viewer to see
a blank space, but one that is determinative of what is seen. The term
"closure"
is perhaps a more felicitous
term than has been acknowledged.
The operationof closingoffall otherpossibi lities(V itanza

mightcal 1them
incompossibilities)shutsoff theexcess and allows a single readingto
I acknowledge
this
emerge. However,
following Lyotard and Vitanza,
blank space, an abyss of rhetoric, by inventing an idiom for it (Lyotard's
process of "bearingwitness"),whichwill bemy goal inthe latterhalfof

this paper. For now, we are building an argument by adding
notion of blindness theVitanzan conception of excess.
to Taylor's
I have saved Cynthia Haynes' "Writing Offshore: The Disappearing

Coastline of Composition Theory" for last since it is a more unusual case,
inasmuch as she does not employ the term "paralogy." This does not make
less paralogical.
She will provide a third point of
since
is concerned with excluded
(appropriate
paralogy
her thinking any
triangulation
thirds), so that Imay place the idiom of the gutter among Taylor's and
Vitanza's
para-terms. Haynes seeks to unground rhetoric and composi
tion as the teaching of argument by promising "to probe the ground beneath
teaching argument (nee critical thinking) that compels us to teach good

writing as the invention of good reasons" (670). She explores themetaphor
of grounding and ungrounding extensively inan attempt to "maneuver us
(rhet/comp)
philosophical
ina different direction, to draw us away from the shoreline of

investigation and itsalluring beacon of argumentation"
(671).
Her principal interlocutor

isMartinHeidegger, specificallytheshiftinhis
fromanchoring
thought
Being ina givenhomelandintheearlierwork (such
as Being
and Time), to releasing it "into its essence as the principle of

ground itself (675). In lookingatthe metaphor of ground, she finds a topos

160
jac
of argument in rhetoric and composition:
the street. Haynes maintains
that
with calls to connectwritingwith the

compositionpedagogy is fraught
street, to appeal
to the street-smart student.We find this call in rhetoric and
composition all too commonly enough?connecting

writing to the real
outside
the
classroom.
The
she
world,
writes, with this particular
problem,
topos is that the "street, and all the subcultural resistance that the term
evokes, is emblematic of a well-oiled
logic of containment" (684). The
a
or
in
this
locale
connection finds writing just as
street, particular
topos,
as writing confined to the classroom.
ones.
containment, albeit well-rehearsed
contained
Both
are
logics of
Haynes moves to deconstruct the street topos, tomove composition

invents writing as
offshore. The streetwise topos, always combative,
fighting. Haynes wants to proceed differently, to find a place off the street
fromwhich to think about writing. InHaynes, Ifind a welcome
traveling
in that I also want tomove out of the street, or from out of the
companion
topos, and into the gutter. The gutter demonstrates for us not a topos, but
is the gutter in
that Haynes also seeks. Where
atopos?the
(non)place
between two panels? It is neither "here" nor "there,"
neither "fish" nor "fowl" inany proper sense of reasoning. It is not of the
terms of the dialectic
panel, but between and among panels. Without the gutter, no panels exist.
Iwould even suggest that the panels are not primary, creating the gutter
between them, but rather the artist begins with the blank page: all gutter.
Haynes writes that her "design is notmeant to actively un-build spaces
much as to step back and view the unground (der Abgrund?abyss)
beneath the structures, and to sketch a rhetoric of the unbuilt" (688).
this idea of the unbuilt, a rhetoric that, as Haynes
so
In
later adds, disinvents
which tothinkabout thegutter.

logos,an ungrounding
mightbe foundfrom
What Geoff Sire calls "the (other) storythatdwells in the (purported)
story," the gutter is beginning, is the abyss, fromwhich al 1possible stories
can begin to emerge (193). As long as we have a gutter, we can construct
different relations between the panels. We are not looking for the correct
reading, which is a will tomastery (Nietzsche), to authority over the comic,
but for understanding different readings, all made in the gutter.
Not
detaches
mentality
sketch a rhetoric of the unbuilt, Haynes

from the comfort zone of "ground"
rhetoricians/compositionists
content
to merely
and hails us into a shifting vessel where we must understand

161
Joshua C. Hilst
ourselves
Haynes,
as boat people?people
without a proper place or topos. For
people without a place understand rhetoric as otherwise: "Rheto
ric as refugerearticulatesthepaths of thepoets and illuminatestheir
abstract
trajectories. Displacing
argument
is rhetoric's
supreme
task;
disinventinglogos isrhetoric'ssacredduty"(707). She seeksanotherway

of talking about rhetoric and writing. Whereas
logic and reason, typically
of as thegroundof ourdiscipline,have become thepredominant

thought
way, Haynes looks for other ways, other trajectories, thatmight serve to
disinvent logos. To locate other trajectories, and in the process disinvent
the logos thatresides inthepanels, enacts theparalogic operationof the
gutter. Haynes makes my point that the gutter, the non-place
from which
thisoperationhappens,formstheabyss fromwhich all thesetrajectories
In this case, thegutter is rhetoric. Let us take from our traveling

companions, then, these ways of thinking about the gutter: as the blindness
emerge.
thatprovides insight,as theexcess thatmust be disallowed inorder to
provide
single
explanation,
and as
the atopos,
the abgrund
that
we should look
disinventslogos.To illustrate
and rhetorically,
both literally
at some examples.5
/HCiCWr-'THK
ON? fNTHE
Figure4
COAWYW/N6
2 CVCW'r
1 #A$ \JOST
flows
TO
0&8<7 MYXlf. TN?
don th??d/h?fo reu
ytxy
KXJTHAT.
I.WA$,
SO TH?fi?
tecne w rxesT/mcH
&cw
- -1
fCfi
WAP/1
T/fXS
7MA7/#
GUMS
1(0 '#
HOW
WAS7 Z> *?U
.-WHAT?..
7mV A6W? W/
rOUTWUNTIL
N?\&?
7**r>>:
V At**'. e>.v
7M?
WMAT?...C#,&#e.
U$?&W8M?$. XX/MOW
r/nm
imew.
HFY-A* voerfo rr Attnrr

WAS
4f&mvwes W*r
BA8S
mtAP&WH6ft>f
WHAT?...
tX/gfTrfY?U??>.

162
jac
comic, Batman:
Frank Miller's
The Dark Knight Returns,
serves as a
prime example of what can happen in the gutter. In this case, the
movements
between
the panels do not function chronologically;
rather,
theyjump between timesand spaces (see Figure 4). The instantsare

unevenlydivided,and therelationsbetween thepanels are anythingbut
(not a sympathetic one?but
recounting Taylor, it
recounts pushing a beggar onto a subway track, he claims,
obvious. A character
seems obvious),
because he didn't knowwhether thebeggarwas theretomug him.The

panels jump fromthereporterinthestudioto theman on thestreet.These
in the shape of television
televised panels are, of course,
screens (again,
butpicked up nonetheless).Spliced in
probablynot activelyregistered,
between cuts, we view
panic of a man
images of the events that transpired: the push, the

in front of an oncoming train, and then a rush of wind. But
theman moves
backwards. Miller
noticethephysicalpositionof theman inthefinalpanel?blown back by

therushofwind. Likelywe have all stoodnext toa trainas itpulled into
thestationandwere probablyblownbackby therushofwind. Inthiscase,
conveys
the intensity of the scene, and
thedeathof the individual,througha rushof air fromthetrainemerging

out of the tunnel. The
relations between
the panels become
completely
We must struggleto lookthroughthepanels and pick up subtle

disjointed.
cues to put a narrative together.
Figure5

163
Joshua C. Hilst
The above panels (see Figure 5) findMiller atperhapshismost rhetorical.

We find a series of diptychs.Diptychs, incomics, show a single image
broken intotwopanels (triptychs
break intothree,quadriptychsintofour,
polyptychs into still more) and have the cinematic effect of a slow pan,
pulling the eye closer to the action by subdividing time and space. We see
here a series of slow pans as a character, having undergone extensive
plastic surgery, pulls off his bandages for the first time. Itseems, in looking
at the panels, hardly necessary to even divide these up?that whole images
might be more useful to us than these diptychs. However, when we
that the character
consider
in question
is a villain named TwoFace,
then
thedelightMiller takes inplayingon thedifferentlevelsof dualitycomes

into full frame. When
the doctors remove the bandages,
thediptychsfinallydisappears.
the line dividing
Again, Miller demonstrates this disorienting effect. What automatic

relation do the panels share? How might we see the narrative passing
We walk throughthegutters,
throughthem?
j uxtaposingpanelwith panel,
and yet what we do not see is just as important as what we do see (the line
down the center of the diptychs, the doctors in later panels). Our blindness
isexploitedalongwith our insight.

The lastpanel (Figure6), a close up of one of thediptychs,shows a
line depicting part of TwoFace's

bandages moving across the panel,
so
as
can
It
the
I
far
is,
tell, the only spot in the book where
gutter.
through
Miller
Here,
allows a line to travel outside the panels into the space of the gutter.
it seems Miller plays with thewhole notion of outside and inside.
is part of the gutter, and what is part of the panels is now thrown into
question. Our traveling companions, no doubt, would perceive thismove
as an ungrounding of the panels thatmakes the gutter visible. All of the
What
excess of the gutter returns to spi 11into the topos of the panel. Having seen
this operation first hand, Iwould now like tomove into a consideration of
the rhetorical operation of the gutter, hence bearing witness
to this idiom.
Theorizing the Idiom

Comics
theorist Thierry Groensteen
of Comics,
inhis recent book, The System

that "the gutter, in and of itself (that is to say, an empty space)
claims

164
jac
Figure6
does not merit fetishization"
(112). He gives several reasons for suggest
ingthatitoughtnotbe fetishized,
arguingthatsomecomicshave onlya 1ine
to separate them, never actually a given empty space. Where
itmight be
objected that the gutterposits a virtual image (an image inferredor

imagined by the viewer), Groensteen
responds: "Comics exist only as a
satisfying narrative form under the condition that, despite the discontinu
ous enunciation and the intermittentmonstration,
the resultant story forms
an uninterrupted
and intelligibletotality"(114). The systemofcomics,he
claims, finds its truth in the sequence

image. On
this last point, Groensteen
of images, rather than any single

is absolutely correct. However,
I
take issuewith a numberof his points regardingthegutter.First, the

suggestion that panels that have on lya line to separate images lack a gutter
seems an odd one. We are not here
arguing over size or length of gutter,
only that there is an interstitial space, a pause between images that causes
the viewer to implicitly place those two images in relation to one another.

165
Joshua C. Hilst
Whether thisisdonewith an infinitesimally

small lineorawide blankspace
is insignificant:
what issignificantis thatwe close out the in-between
of
the images, and bring them together.6 But more importantly, Groensteen's
in that he rules out, a priori,
is problematic
rhetorical
terminology
a
considerations
of the gutter by referring to them as "fetishization,"
troubling formulation. I leave itto the reader to determine whether or not
my discourse on the gutter might be a fetish, but the space seems to be
important for all of the reasons
listed heretofore
(its paralogy,
excess,
relationof blindnessand insight,

atopical nature,and so forth).Ifthis is
most
make
the
of
it!
fetishizing,
More
comics
importantly, the way inwhich he articulates the system of

rules out other possible systems. Groensteen's
argument could be
considered what Vitanza
calls the "will to control" ("Countertheses"
composition
Regarding
"the will to systematize"
studies, Vitanza
and the will
writes
140).
that the field possesses
to be composition's
"author(ity)"
(140). Similarly,Groensteenwill onlyallow fora readingof comics thatis
the reading, one that produces a satisfying and coherent narrative. While
Groensteen
Iser's suggestion of a "wandering view
takes up Wolfgang
wherein
of
words
sequences
(or in comics, images) leads to the
point,"
of expectation
these modifications
modification
as the viewer
proceeds,
he nevertheless
toward a closed ending, the satisfied cus

employs
tomer. There can be no interruptions in such a reading, no excesses:
itmust
a
Like
the
difference
between
third
eventually produce
totality.
sophistic
ears thatDavis
and hermeneutic
describes,
"The
incessant murmur/mutter of the exiled-exscribed
latterdo not attend to the

excess
that must
be
tuned out formeaning to land, to stabilize" ("Finitude's"

134). The issue
is less Groensteen's
focus on the panels (which are, of course, important,
just as messages are important forDavis), but rather his aversion to finding
the paralogy of comics and noting them?by rendering them abject before
we've even begun to notice them. Groensteen would
leave the excess in
the outside inorder to totalize meaning, but Iwould bring back the excess
to have us dwell
in it,as Miller
does. We must bear
formulation: the end goal isnot consensus(the

wants).
inmind Lyotard's
totalized meaning Groensteen
The goal,
rather, is paralogy (Postmodern 65-66).

however, ishelpful inunderstanding the gutter inasmuch
Groensteen,
as he looks to the panels: "[Demonstrating
thatmeaning
is inherent to the

166
jac
image is not something that speaks directly to comics, since it is between

thepanels that the pertinent contextual rapports establish themselves with
respect
to narration"
turning around
metonymic
and
is not
emphasis added). Here Groensteen
to
but
the
rather articulating the
gutter,
looking
(107;
linkage between
panels. He does not focus on the gutter as I
do, buton theaction inthepanels,onlysuggestingthat

metonymiclinkages
bringthosepanels together.Like theaction ina filmic shot,what takes
place in the panels is important, of course. Itwould be foolhardy to deny

such a claim. However,
the in-between, the ignored, the abject, is just as
attest
to the importance of what we do not see.
Comics
important.
Groensteen
posits several operations of the panel lines that border the

I am most interested for this
gutter, but two specific ones in which
discussion are closure and separation.
In closure, "the frame is ... attached
to the frames that surround
it"
the syntagmatic
(Groensteen 43). Here he demonstrates
linkages be
tween panels through the operation of closure. As a syntagm, these panels
are metonymically
linked. The viewer moves from one panel to the next,
linking the actions
perceived
in each across
the interstitial gutter. Not
movementfindsa paral leiwithRoman Jakobson

thehorizontal
surprisingly,
and Morris
Halle, who famously posit the poles of metaphor and me

as
the two basic functions of language (90). Metonymy
tonymy
(the
horizontal axis of the graph), links various symbolic elements together.
Metonymy functions syntagmatically by combiningelements. Atthe other
pole, we find metaphor, which
basis of which
language?the
they claim is the paradigmatic function of

is similarity (if we were to draw a graph,
which
is often done, metaphor

is the vertical axis). The individual using
a
selects
from
series
of
elements, each of which might have a
language
kindof similarity.
Separation, the second of these two functions, seems towork along

this vertical axis. The bordering off of the panels one from another
separates them, obviously. Groensteen writes, "It isa condition of read ing
that the panels are physically
isolated from each other, or cognitively
can
sort
ofthe
that
be read separately" (43). Paradoxically,
isolatable,
they
however, the equation of two elements has a similarly divisive function. In
equating two things, we also differentiate them. If I say, "Your
the stars," I have of course made a metaphor. Yet, themetaphor

eyes are
is based
167
Joshua C. Hilst
on the equation
of two different things. Picture an equal
sign, with two
elementson eitherside.While thetwoelementsposit a degree

different
of comparability or agreement, the equation works only on the basis of an
unbridgeable chasm.
We
have to bend this chasm
somewhat
for the binding/separation
bridge that allows

the gutter. Catachresis
and search for a rhetorical

movement
operating within
is typically a category of metaphor and refers
to a metaphor "misused" to rhetorical effect, a kind of abuse
specifically
of the comparison function. The Silva Rhetoricae
site lists the following
"He was foolish enough to order the new music CD sight
example:
unseen," and then explains, "No parallel idiom to 'sight unseen' exists for
things auditory, so the idiom iswrenched from its proper context to this
unusual one." Catachresis,
then, ismetaphor, but a metaphor so different
from the everyday context that itmerits a differentterm.Quintilian
inwhich much
explains further in the Institutes of Oratory, "Metaphor,
of the ornament of speech consists, applies words to things towhich they
do not properly belong. Hence, the propriety of which we are speaking,
relates, not to a word absolutely, but to the sense inwhich it is used, and
is to be estimated, not by the ear, but by themind" (8.2.6). Metaphor, as
we have seen in its traditional conception, is paradigmatic,
equating one
for
another through similarity.
thing
The operation of this rhetoric, then, through the gutter, consists in
creating a new relationship that may not be accounted for in strictly
metaphoric terms. It ismetonymic in its linkages, but that does not account
for what
In other words, while there is a metaphoric
is happening.
operation in the separation of panels, the meanings emerge through the
notes, we will conjoin two panels
operation of catachresis. As McCloud
no matter how dissimilar.
In his taxonomy of six types of gutters, the last

interesting, and perhaps themost appropriate tomy
to McCloud
the non sequitur
sequitur. According
of the six is themost

work
here:
non
suggests "no logical relationship between panels whatsoever"

(72). When
occur
a
the
is
established
gutter, syntagmatic relationship
linkages
through
Jakobson and Halle
render the syntagmatic along the

horizontal axis. One panel is linked to the next, and the "reader" can "read"
across the page, not all that different from regular text. Yet, at the same
(Groensteen
22).
time, it ishugely different because of the operation of closure. Closure

asks
168
jac
the viewer to take these two panels and establish a relationship. This is an
the relationship, equate the two panels. The
operation of metaphor?find
gutterthenis thejoining togetherof twodisparate ideas syntagmatically

and paradigmatically,
linked as well as equated. The parataxis (and . . .
and... and) thatwe are looking for utilizes both functions, accounting for
unpredictability.
taxonomy misses the point that the rela
Unfortunately, McCloud's
between
tionship
panels always requires the viewer to learn to construct
the relationship, which is not a natural relation. The relation between two
panels is constructed, asking that the viewer determine what is happening
in this new language. These relationships, Iwould argue, are less natural,
and more developed over time until they appear thatway. In other words,
all gutters are non sequitur. Nietzsche
reminds us that all language is
on
in
his
"Notes
Rhetoric," he maintains: "The tropes,
tropic. Specifically,
non-literal significations, are considered to be themost artistic means of
all words are tropes in
respect to their meanings,
et
and
the
al. 23). In other words,
from
themselves,
beginning" (Gilman
there is no basic, non-literal language.
rhetoric. But, with
We might, then, call the operation of the gutter a metonymic
itfunctions in such amanner, bringing together opposite

"poles" of language, is precisely what makes the gutter paralogic. Itdoes
not present a divide between the metaphor and metonymy, but rather
catachresis.
That
functions on both levels. There are continuous
linkages between panels,

a
but the divide that brings the two together is function of catachresis.
Impossible to codify, itkeeps the viewer in a kind of guessing game. As
Thomas Kent suggests: "Unlike rule-bound grammatical structures that
the nature of a particular language or semiotic system, paralogy
. . . possesses
no positive elements, no innate structure, no codifiable
describe
grammar, and, therefore, no normative rules that we may violate" (5).

What I am suggesting is thatwe can claim that it isn't rule-bound because
of the element of catachresis.
catachresis brings together dissimilar elements, as I
Unpredictable,
have noted. Catachresis
is not rule-bound, but rather creates new rules,
giving birth to metaphor. To refer to the "legs" of a table might seem
and natural. However,
this metaphor has to be
reasonable
we
to
these two elements.
have
invent
the
between
invented;
similarity
perfectly

169
Joshua C. Hilst
is the instance of
The first instance of placing two ideas in juxtaposition
catachresis. Eventually, we may find that certain of these catachreses
work better, and they become more normalized. But the relationship
between comics panels isno more natural or literal than is literal language.
Gutters always present us with two images and require us to construct the
only forgotten that the gutter is a non
relationship between them.We've
over
occurs
an
time. So what we have, then, is a
sequitur,
operation that
special case of metaphor. Two panels are both linked and equated in an
fashion. Both contributions fromMcCloud
unpredictable, unassimilable
but they do not account for the
excess of paralogy, for thatwhich is excessive to the system. As Davis
interaction,"
claims, once communication can be defined as "successful
we can once again rule out all of the "'marks and noises' that can't be
and Groensteen
are, of course, valuable,
immediately appropriated"
Conclusions:
(129). Paralogy,
Reveling
however,
is our goal.
in the Noise
There are two distinct and important conclusions to draw from th is idea of
metonymic catachresis. The first regards the notion of so-called visual
rhetorics, inwhich there is a tendency to see the composition of images in
a unified way. I am thinking here especially of Gunther Kress, who tends
to focus on the semiotics of a given image, especially
in his Reading
and Multimodal
Discourse.
Images: The Grammar
of Visual Design
And while he looks at theway that images, and even pages, can be brought
into relation (see especially Grammar 25), the emphasis tends to be on
and how to produce it.Kress'
penchant for looking at the
can
of
composition
images overlooks the noise that such juxtaposition
produce in the interstitial spaces. Ifmy arguments are persuasive, thenwe
coherence
must acknowledge
that it is not only the composition of a distinct image,
but the arrangements of elements within them that give rise to any suasi ve
capacity that images possess. While Kress would no doubt agree with
such a claim, the unseen, excessive, atopical gutter presents an entirely
different issue for visual composition. Visual
rhetorics often focus on
composition atthe levelofcoherence(followingtrajectoriesin
design and visual perception), but less so at the paralogical

information
level.
170
jac
Exceptions may, of course, be found in some new media scholars,

such as Nicholas Burbules, JeffRice, and Sean Williams, all ofwhom have
focusedon therhetorics
ofjuxtapositionand the impliedguttersinbetween
screens when
one navigates a
two-part essay, "An
webpage. Williams'
on
in
in
theways inwhich
Integrated Pedagogy
part,
Hyptertext," focuses,
"juxtaposing
competing representations" allow students to rethink the
relations between various aspects of an argument and enables exploring
alternative forms of argument. In Rice's Rhetoric of Cool: Composition
and New Media,
he claims that "Juxtapositions among ideas as well as
word
and
and inferences absent in most

image prompt assumptions
or
narrative
argumentative
writing." (74). His epigraph from William
Burrough'sA^va^x:/?^^
isequally telling:"The basic lawof association
isknown to college students even inAmerica: Any object,

feeling, odor, word, image injuxtaposition with any other object, feeling,
word or image will be associated with it" (85). Burbules' article "Rhetorics
and conditioning
link to another
suggests that having one page on a website
a
connection
the
the
between
two, and
suggests
goal must be for
of theWeb"
always
rhetoricians to consider this relationship. Whereas a great deal ofwork has
been done investigating whether or not visuals can present an argument,
what is just as important (because paralogical)
are the ways
inwhich
are associated.7 Whether or not association
and juxtaposition
constitute a "proper" argument is less significant than the association
itself. This is thework thatmost exemplifies the function of the gutter:
visuals
The undecidable figure is theblade, Abraham's raised knife, to be

exact. Although both noun and verb, to slash is the predicate with
which the scapegoat enters culture and unleashes a devastating

mechanism upon humanity.The slash /signals an image?Abraham
standing over Isaac, knife raised at an angle, prepared to sacrifice
his only son?that marks a moment of indecision; but the undecid
able dynamic is set inmotion?rhetoric, and/orcomposition, caught
inan act of faith. ("Rhetoric")
seizes upon the slash as an undecidable

location: an interstitial
She
extends
the
of
the slash to account
space.
metaphor (or catachresis)
for the blade. This same blade begets the logic of the cut?slashing
the
Haynes
whole
into pieces
in order to re-cut, recast, and continually

reinvent
171
Joshua C. Hilst
inventing new
something new. The gutter slashes between panels,
rhetorics and new ways of seeing. I take this same blade as a point of
departure by which to describe a slasher rhetoric. Slasher rhetorics
match disparate phenomena, different ideas, pairing them together to
invent new topoi, new idioms. This same slash of the gutter resides in the
most
crucial
the slash between

rhetoric and
part of our discipline,
a site of frequent and contentious relation inour discipline.8
composition,
The slash, which was
so jarring to theMLA
editor inHaynes's
article, is
a call to us not to select one at the expense of the other, but serves rather
as an invitation to inhabit both, and to construe and reinvent continual lythe
relation between them.91 hope that through this exposition of the gutter,
we
can learn to see how our discipline might be connected

same slash.
through the
idiom, a slasher rhetoric recalls Davis' Breaking Up [At]

she writes for those who want to produce something
wherein
Totality,
other than "the same old modernist text" (6). It is in the breaking up of
this idiom of rhetoric takes (non)place. The
totality?the
gutter?that
A comic
information inside the panels is,of course, important. However, we need

to recognize the paralogies atwork here. A new relationship is introduced
by inserting this space that the viewer closes over and ignores. In not
ignoring this space, and hence closing off the excess of which it is part, a
different idiom of rhetoric is produced. Such an idiom has great value for
understanding visual rhetoric, but also calls us to recognize the slash that
is so important to our discipline. In particular, itassists infinding new ways
inwhich we might reinvent their relationship, in returning ever again to the
gutter and allowing itsexcess to flow, inallowing logos to be disinvented.
A logicof thecut isan idiomsuggestedby extensiveparallels inthework

of Taylor, Vitanza, and Haynes, and remixes another idiomwith which we
bear a catachretic witness?a
slasher rhetoric.
Utah Valley University

Orem,
Utah
Notes
1.Readers familiarwith visual perception theorieswill understand closure
somewhat differently.Closure, especially inGestalt theories, refers to a type of

172
jac
optical illusion,wherein a circle that is not quite closed inproximity to another

shape will deceive the eye intoperceiving itas a full circle. Here, while there isan
operation in themind thatbrings togetherpanels, thepanels remain quite distinct.

That is, there isno optical illusion thatfools the viewer into thinking two panels
are one.
See Ware.
2. This reading will no doubt reflect similar conceptions that have been
developed inother fields. For instance, inLouise Rosenblatt's theory of trans
actional reading, she claims that interpretations ignore "elements in the text or
[project] on itexperiences forwhich there isno defensible basis inthe text" (137).
I take no issue with Rosenblatt's
theory, letme differentiatemy own

position by saying thatwhile there are common principles atwork, Rosenblatt's
gaps are more metaphorical innature,whereas the gutter ismore literal.Where
Rosenblatt discusses ignored elements as gaps, she speaks metaphorically, at the
level of the content of the text. In thegutter,we are dealing with form?that is, the
While
gutter is a gap inasmuch as it is an actual, physical gap in the storyof the comic.
3.1 do refer toKent's definition of paralogy, despite also referringto one of
Kent's critics on the subject of paralogy, Diane Davis. While Davis is critical of
Kent's normative claims regarding paralogy, she does not criticize Kent on the
basis of his descriptive claims. That is, she rightly critiques Kent's placing
paralogy in the service of hermeneutics and ultimately allowing itsreappropria
tion. However, I thinkKent's general description ofwhat paralogy is seems to
accord well enough with Lyotard's tomerit inclusion here.
4. This idea no doubt draws comparisons to schema theory,a psychological
concept drawn from thework of Jean Piaget, but exposited by more current
research in educational psychology (see Anderson), artificial intelligence re
search (see Arbib), and elsewhere. Schema theory looks at theways inwhich
knowledge equips learnerswith a means, as Anderson writes, "often not repro
ducible in sentences, which provides [a student]with a framework or context for
interpretingnew experiences" (416). In otherwords, past experience provides a
basis for understanding. Though Imay see a limited view of a cube, I recognize
itand still know ithas six sides. Memory and knowledge provide an expectation
that can fulfillwhat is seen. Anderson suggests that theways inwhich schema
interactcan be viewed as assimilation, and the change in schema as accommo

1
the
dation, a dialectical process. This view of schema certainlywould fitwel with
ideas espoused inThierry Groensteen's The System ofComics, since Groensteen
is interested in theways inwhich viewers assimilate informationand construct
narratives of closure (seemy section on "Theorizing the Idiom"). However, where
I differ is precisely in the concept of assimilation. I am less interested in seeing
how panels are assimilated, and more interested ingutters thatplay with closure
and seek to interruptclosed and unambiguous viewings?an excessive take on
the gutter.
5. One certainly ought not to base a theoryon a single example, and I do not.

JoshuaC. Hilst
173
isused to illustratepresentlywhat thegutter can do, therearemany

of
similarly radical uses of thegutter (and perhaps more so). Iwould refer
examples
the reader toMoore and Hickman.
While Miller
6. In Information Visualization, Ware distinguishes two types of visual

representation: sensory (biological) and arbitrary (conventional). Ware's goal is
to establish better models of design based on how we see. Visual perception
theory notes the idea of gaps inperception that arise from the structure of the
retina.The suggestion thatvisual acuity drops off sharply outside of certain lines
of vision produces gaps inwhat we perceive. These, of course, might also be kinds
of gutters. Ware suggests thatmost designs are a mix of both sensory and
arbitrary representation, and thegutter isundoubtedly no different. I am focused
here on the conventional side.Moreover, where Ware is interested inunderstand
ing visual perception in an effortto create visual designs thatproduce themost
efficient readings, Iwould prefer to show how the excess thatescapes us can also
be valuable. There ismost certainly value in the scientific research ofWare, as
itcontributes to thedevelopment of improved informationsystems and technolo

gies. However, as distinct fromWare's perceptual theories of design, I am less
interested invisualizations that"derive their expressive power from being well
designed to stimulate the visual sensory system" and more interested inhow to
"interrupt" such systematic ideas (Ware 12).

7. See especially J.Anthony Blair.
8. As an exemplar, we might look at Bruce Horner's Terms of Work for
Composition: AMaterialist Critique, where he examines (133-64) three "disci
plines" towhich composition looks inan effortto improve itssituationwithin the

academy: English, cultural studies, and rhetoric. However, to understand the
discipline not as composition (or writing) studies, but as composition and
rhetoric, construed through the gutter of the slash, is to understand them as
already part and parcel of the same thing.Rather than parsing the two out from
each other, and understanding them as differentdisciplines only conveniently
and incidentally placed together, Iwant to see them connected throughparalogy,
a paratactical relationship with the possibility for reinvention.
is a tendency, I fear, that is opposed by the recentNorton Book of

Composition Studies (Susan Miller) almost certain to foment canon formation
around writing studies rather than rhetoric and composition.
9. This
Works Cited
Anderson, R.C.
"The Notion of Schemata and the Educational
Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge.

Hillsdale:Erlbaum, 1977.415-31.
Enterprise."
Ed. R.C. Anderson et al.

174
jac
Arbib, Michael A., JeffreyConklin, and Jane C. Hill. From Schema Theory to
Language. New York: Oxford UP, 1987.
Blair, J.Anthony. "The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments," Argu
mentation and Advocacy 33 A (1996): 23-39.
Burbules, Nicolas C. "Rhetorics of theWeb: Hyperreading and Critical Literacy."
Page toScreen: Taking Literacy into theElectronic Era. Ed. liana Snyder.
New York: Routledge, 1998.102-22.
Burke, Kenneth. Permanence andChange: An Anatomy ofPurpose. Berkeley: U
ofCaliforniaP,1984.
Burroughs, William S. Nova Express. New York: Grove/Atlantic, 1992.
Davis, D. Diane. Breaking Up [At] Totality: A Rhetoric ofLaughter. Carbondale:
Southern IllinoisUP, 2000.
-.
"Finitude's Clamor; Or, Notes toward a Communitarian Literacy." College

Composition and Communication 53 (2001): 119-45.
De Man, Paul. Blindness and Insight: Essays in theRhetoric ofContemporary
Criticism. Minneapolis: U ofMinnesota P, 1971.
Jacques. "Difterance." Margins
Chicago: U ofChicago P, 1982.3-27.
Derrida,
of Philosophy.
Trans. Alan Bass.
Gilman, Sander L., Carole Blair, and David J.Parent, eds. Friedrich Nietzsche on
Rhetoric and Language. New York: Oxford UP, 1989.
Groensteen, Thierry. The System ofComics. Jackson: UP ofMississippi,
Haynes, Cynthia. "Rhetoric/Slash/Composition." Enculturation5.
/enculturation.gmu.edu/5_l/index51 .html. 14April 2008.
-.
2007.
\(2003). http:/
"Writing Offshore: The Disappearing Coastline ofComposition Theory."
JAC23(2003):667-724.
Helms, Jason. Personal Interview. 30 Mar. 2007.

Hickman, Jonathan. The Nightly News. Berkeley, CA: Image Comics, 2007.

JoshuaC. Hilst
175
Horner, Bruce. Terms ofWorkfor Composition: AMaterialist Critique. Albany:

State U ofNew York P, 2000.
Jakobson, Roman, and Morris Halle. Fundamentals
Mouton, 1956.
of Language. New York:
Kent, Thomas. Paralogic Rhetoric: A Theory of Communicative

Cranbury,NJ: Associated UP, 1993.
Interaction.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo Van Leeuwen. Multimodal Discourse. London: Hodder,
2001.
-.
Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge,

2006.
inDispute. Minneapolis:
U of
The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis:
U of
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Differend: Phrases

Minnesota P, 1988.
-.
Minnesota P, 1984.
McCloud,
Scott. Understanding Comics. New York: Harper, 1993.
Miller, Frank, with Klaus Janson and Lynn Varley. Batman: The Dark Knight
Returns. New York: D.C. Comics, 1986.
Moore, Alan. Promethea. New York: Wildstorm Comics, 2001.
Quintilian. Institutes ofOratory.
1856. Trans. Rev. John Selby Watson, http://

14April 2008.
honeyl.public.iastate.edu/quintilian/index.html.Accessed
Rice, JeffThe Rhetoric ofCool: Composition Studies and New Media. Carbondale:
Southern IllinoisUP, 2007.
Sire, Geoffrey. English Composition as a Happening. Logan: Utah State UP, 2002.
Taylor, Todd. "IfHe Catches You, You're Through: Coyotes and Visual Ethos."
The Language ofComics: Word and Image.Ed. Robin Varnum and Christina
T. Gibbons. Jackson: UP ofMississippi, 2001.40-59.
Vitanza, Victor. Negation, Subjectivity, and The History of Rhetoric. Albany:
State U ofNew York P, 1997.

176
-.
jac
"Three Countertheses: A Critical In(ter)vention intoComposition Theories

and Pedagogies." Contending With Words: Composition and Rhetoric in a
Postmodern Era. Ed. J.SchilbandP. Harkin. New York: MLA,

-.
1991.139-72.
"Seeing inThird Sophistic Ways." Rhetoric and Composition as Intellec

tualWork. Ed. Gary A. Olson. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002.
Ware, Colin. Information Visualization:
Francisco: Morgan, 2004.
Perception for Design.
2nd ed. San
Sean D. "Part 2: Toward an Integrated Composition Pedagogy

123-35.
Hypertext." Computers andComposition\S.2(200\)\
Williams,

in

Gutter Talk Joshua

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gutter Talk Joshua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gutter Talk: (An)Other Idiom of Rhetoric

Author(s): Joshua C. Hilst

This content downloaded from 14.139.196.4 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:41:49 AM

due deferencetoDerrida, Iwill speak, therefore,

at the edge of the street where wastewater

and trash flow,

I am speakingof a wholly different

gutter. I am speaking about the space in between panels on the pages of

typicallyfinda blank space, knowntoartistsandwritersof comics as the

the viewer reads the panels of a comics page, he or she

This content downloaded from 14.139.196.4 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:41:49 AM

The viewerwould likelyassume thatthevictimhas justdied.Why should

any such thing?

in his theoretical "comic

Similar toRene Magritte?who remindedus of the infidelity

This content downloaded from 14.139.196.4 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:41:49 AM

and inclinations of themind. The mind takes these

I argue, is to read the rhetorics of paralogy

Jean-Fran9ois Lyotard: "It is necessary to link, but themode of linkage is

But, first we need a word

difficult to define, Lyotard puts forthparalogy (principally inThe

as a way of breaking up master narratives?

[A] power thatdestabilizes thecapacity forexplanation, manifested

field of research for the language of science. (Postmodern 61)

Lyotard deploys paralogies here in the context of science, both

of both a monologic mystery. Identifying an

that has made

I put forth a "slasher rhetoric." My offering will show

This content downloaded from 14.139.196.4 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:41:49 AM

Subjectivity, and the History

with (un)groundinginan efforttodelay

to ensure "no final point of stasis"

for thinkingabout rhetoric(Vitanza 72). Forging connectionsbetween

theorists of rhetoric have

paralogy and the

singular attempts to un-rest rhetoric resonate well with/

rhetorical inventors, they serve as ideal traveling companions for thiswalk,

and distraught appearance

through his pathetic

thatwhich we do not literally see,"

This content downloaded from 14.139.196.4 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:41:49 AM

(46). "Once we recognize thatwe merely glimpse

increasingly important" (47). Our "moments of greatest blindness," Paul

Taylor most directly addresses Thomas Kent's application of paralogy

that allows us to shiftground relies on paralogical elements

the eye providing closure inorder to interpret the story.

This content downloaded from 14.139.196.4 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:41:49 AM

the panels do show us. The gutter is, as Taylor argues,

we find a second conception of the gutter?specifically,

of paralogy, as previously mentioned. Paralogy is a means of breaking up

side by side, simple

itdoes not simply make theweaker argument the stronger, but

continual overturnings and denegations may be seen as ways of ensuring

This content downloaded from 14.139.196.4 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:41:49 AM

is perhaps a more felicitous

term than has been acknowledged.

The operationof closingoffall otherpossibi lities(V itanza

process of "bearingwitness"),whichwill bemy goal inthe latterhalfof

I have saved Cynthia Haynes' "Writing Offshore: The Disappearing

her thinking any

teaching argument (nee critical thinking) that compels us to teach good

ina different direction, to draw us away from the shoreline of

Her principal interlocutor

and Time), to releasing it "into its essence as the principle of