A Rule of Thumb (on the other hand)

Perhaps the notion of a power struggle between rhetor and critic (a question of who's under whose thumb) is a crude one to introduce, as in a certain sense I do believe the critic should always be operating on the rhetor's terms. So to balance the picture I'll cite a passage which has for a while been my favourite description of rhetorical criticism as I'd like to practice it:

Interpretive criticism emphasizes the particular object of inquiry, and instead of seeking to rise above particulars, it adheres to the rough ground covered by the material of the discipline. From this perspective, since the genius of rhetorical activity consists in adaptation to constantly changing circumstances, rhetorical scholarship should not lead to and from static generalizations. Abstract principles can never govern the variety and mutability of rhetorical practice, and so they have limited utility when viewed in isolation or arranged within self-contained theoretical structures. The goal of criticism is not to generate governing laws that subsume critical observations but to offer what anthropologists call a thick description of the case at hand. Principles are not regarded as autonomous entities but as flexible tools that change configuration whenever they are asked to do rhetorical work, and they become intelligible only as they are instantiated in concrete cases.

Thus Michael Leff on Rhetorical Criticism in the Interpretive Mode (2003).

One should adhere to the rough ground and pay attention to the text, yes - of course? - but without simply reproducing points already made by the rhetor right there on the page ("Norman Mailer seems to be almost advertising himself here...")

And more importantly, one should adhere to the rough ground and pay attention to the text without letting the rhetor's assumed intentions limit the scope of inquiry. A study of the notion of polysemy, democracy, Italy, or irony in a given text may become fruitful even if the rhetor himherself didn't see that coming.

But this is beginning to sound banal, isn't it, and that may well be because I'm not discussing any texts in particular. There's no rough ground to adhere to in this post. I'll end it right away.