David Cross, Sophist?

David Cross, in an open letter to Larry the Cable Guy, aptly titled, "An Open letter to Larry the Cable Guy" touches on quite a few of the Sophist ideals in this week's readings, most notably, the "Dissoi Logoi" and John Poulakos's "Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric".

"An Open Letter to Larry the Cable Guy", from Cross's website, and most recently Cross's 2009 book "I Drink for a Reason", is a direct response to "Larry's" (or is it "Mr. Cable Guy's"?) verbal assault on Cross and "the P.C. Left" in an interview from Rolling Stone. While not as eloquent as some of the more classical Sophists, the open letter embodies many elements of  "On the Seemly and Shameful", from "Dissoi Logoi", as well as the concepts of kairos (timeliness), to prepon (the appropriate), the notions of rhetoric as art, style and personal expression from Poulakos's essay.

An Open Letter to Larry the Cable Guy, Part 1

An Open Letter to Larry the Cable Guy, Part 2

In this explicit retort, Cross embraces the notion that some things are both seemly and shameful (Dissoi Logoi, 49). Cross, on several occasions, alleges that Larry and his fan base embrace the anti-intellectual ethos that seems to have permeated the national conscience at the onset of the 21st century. While Cross and his fan base may regard this as shameful and their "superior intellect" as seemly, it could be argued that his attack on what he deems the "lowest common denominator" as an act is equally shameful. Cross further goes on to debase Larry, by insulting his seemingly ignorant world view, his elementary style of humor, and his perceived bigotry as also shameful. This act of verbal assault, at least in my mind, is both seemly and shameful. It is seemly to me, because I think Cross "hits the nail on the head", and shameful because, well, he hits the nail on the head. It is shameful that in an age of information, access to education, high literacy rates, etc., that someone such as Larry the Cable Guy can exploit the perceived ignorance of a portion of his fan base's unfounded fears of Islam ([sic] "Ya wanna pray to Allah then drag yer flea infested ass over to where they pray to Allah at!” ),  homophobia (“Madder than a queer with lock jaw on Valentines Day.”), and masquerading bigotry under the banner of "telling it like it is". 

Cross, according to the "Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric", appeals to the rhetorical in that he speaks (and writes) with a sense of urgency, which is what compels a rhetor to speak (Poulakos, 39).  The timeliness (kairos) of his rebuttal was only hindered by the processes of research, writing, and publication. 

Comedy, even when it takes form of scathing satire, as this letter does, is considered an artform. It is David Cross's primary artform, the one that catapulted him to fame, or infamy, depending on your personal view of him. While there are some truths contained within the letter (the revealing of Larry the Cable Guy's real name, a brief overview of his formative years, his geographical location during these years, etc.) the overall piece, when viewed as art, "does not admit criteria appropriate to strictly epistemological or axiological matters (Poulakos, 37).  There is a style in which the letter is composed, that echoes Cross's other comedic works, in that there is an observation of a societal ill or social flaw that warrants satire. This homogeny can be described as adhering to Poulakos's hypothesis of rhetoric as style and personal expression.

As  appropriateness ( to prepon) is concerned, there lies an interesting argument. While some may argue that Cross's use of profane language and quasi-blasphemous imagery is inappropriate, the style in which the comedic act is executed is appropriate to preserve the continuity of his body of work. Given David Cross's reputation as an atheist, and what some consider a "pseudo-intellectual", then the appropriate  factor still applies.

While the eloquence of David Cross's rhetorical style is far less polished than primordial rhetoricians, it still adheres to some scholarly justifications as to what rhetoric is.