Rice's Rhetoric of Cool - What do I think?/What do you think?

I was watching Family Guy the other day, and Peter was in bed. As he was adjusting for comfort, he says, “the pillow is always ‘cooler’ on the other side.” Peter, then, proceeds to flip his pillow over, and a face of an African American male begins to talk on the other side of the pillow. The face takes on the character of an African American male jazz musician. As I watched this, I noticed that the typical topoi informed this scene. Cool as an image or as a calmness in the face of oppression – both of which Rice mentions in the beginning of his text. However, even though the scene was influenced by typical topoi, the face appears in an unexpected place. In fact, the face is juxtaposed against the backside of the pillow, and the character, the African American jazz musician, was appropriated from elsewhere. The appropriation and juxtaposition make this scene quite funny.


Rice attempts to show that new media has been part of composition as early as 1963. By doing so, Rice establishes a historical presence and minute acceptance of what he is advocating. At the same time, Rice tells us that our students are already highly influenced and have acclimated themselves to new media and the ways in which new media produces knowledge. As a reader, I do not have a difficult time accepting these two premises. Additionally, chora, appropriation, juxtaposition, commutation, and nonlinearity seem appropriate to make use of in the Postmodern classroom with students who are constantly exposed to knowledge presented in these ways. However, most first year composition classes would need major changes in their curriculum along with changes in academia to make this type of composition - the rhetoric of cool – happen.


Rice claims that he is not trying to replace the current system with the rhetoric of cool or produce any unrealistic dichotomy – current vs. rhetoric of cool. However, if students were to write using the rhetoric of cool, no longer would there be an emphasis on argument, theses/topic sentences or typical /expected structure, the audience or whether the audience may/may not understand a message, or a distinct intended message. Shawn’s paper demonstrated a lack of intended message and complete lack of thought for the audience. Yes, in the end, all of us in class took multiple meanings away from his paper (so the paper did generate knowledge), but is this technique or method of writing going to be useful to a student in other academic courses or in his/her future careers? Most likely, not. I do see, however, how we may incorporate parts of Rice’s theory.


Rice claims one can use chora, appropriation, juxtaposition, commutation, and nonlinearity to produce or generate knowledge. I agree. Certain activities mentioned in Rice’s text – the cut-up, mix, celebrity website – all help students to generate new knowledge and see certain, common words/things/images in a new way. I think this is great for invention. At the same time, Rice suggests we have our students produce or make the media which they are critiquing etc. I believe this is useful. For instance, having students critique websites is fine, but also have them make a website – learn how to use this form of media. Students can learn quite a bit compositionally/rhetorically through making various kinds of compositions – have them make an advertisement. Obviously, imagery comes into play here, and even though Rice somewhat undermines this idea – students do respond more positively to working with images/visual rhetoric over written rhetoric.


Where could we completely use Rice’s rhetoric of cool? I do think Rice’s rhetoric of cool is a worthwhile effort to further explore in the classroom, but I thinking maybe an advanced composition class or graduate class would be a more appropriate audience for this rhetoric. I know I am resorting to the - know the rules first, then break them – but I kind of believe that is the case here. I would be interested in taking a rhetoric of cool course. I think taking that course would actually improve my writing in general. In the end, how does one grade a rhetoric of cool course? How do you judge a piece that seemingly makes no sense but allows you as an individual to construct your own meaning?


I was watching Project Runway last night, and oftentimes the contestants have to use materials that typically would not be use to make a garment. For instance, in the past, the contestants have had to use materials from the grocery store to make a garment, and last night, the contestants had to use material from a hardware store to make a garment. In designing and making their garments, the contestants do appropriate and juxtapose materials into the garment as a commutation. All of this is very visually based – obviously. During the runway show, judges sit to the side of the catwalk and judge the garments as they come down the runway. The judges are experts in fashion and often are fashion designers as well. Innovation always seems to be key to the judges. However, in this hardware challenge, the judges look for innovation, but also the garment had to be well-designed, well-made, and beautiful. Ultimately, the winner made his hardware materials look like actual, cloth material. I explore this to think about how I would grade a rhetoric as cool project. Is it simply about innovation? Should I resort back to old standards? Could I resort to old standards? If I gain meaning from the project, should it receive an “A”? I don’t know.

Toward the end of the last chapter, Rice does pose some interesting questions. Some of which he may have answered and others that he has not fully answered. This questions need to be further examined.