Edgar Allan Poe: Rhetoric and Style (review)

Brett Zimmerman's stylistic analysis of a varied selection of works by Poe ascertains beyond a doubt Poe's status as a skilled and versatile literary craftsman who was conversant with classical rhetoric. An examination of 'grammar, lexis, syntax, phonology, typology, punctuation, but especially classical rhetoric – figures of thought and figures of speech, the schemes and tropes' – all fall under the purview of Zimmerman's close readings of 'The Tell-Tale Heart,' 'The Black Cat,' and 'The Masque of the Red Death'; his survey of a number of Poe's tales (especially his parodies); and his study of several critical reviews. In his emphatic defence of Poe's rhetorical dexterity, Zimmerman proceeds from the methodological premise, espoused predominantly by scholars who perceive Poe as an ironist, which distinguishes the author from his narrators. He demonstrates convincingly that Poe maintains a critical distance from them, and that his use of rhetorical figures is dependent, for the most part, upon characterization. In other words, Zimmerman successfully refutes scholarly invectives against Poe's stylistic acrobatics, most often directed at the verbosity of his Gothic narrators, by demonstrating that what critics call exercises in bad taste on Poe's part are actually rhetorical tactics he employs deliberately to reveal the shortcomings of his speakers. In drawing analogies between Poe's humour in his satirical tales and contemporary North American popular culture, moreover, Zimmerman makes Poe seem less esoteric to the uninitiated reader and successfully contextualizes Poe's uses of rhetoric for comic effects within the broader tradition of American humour.

In the chapter dedicated to Poe's literary reviews, Zimmerman examines the rhetorical scaffold that sustains what he calls Poe's 'critical tomahawkism,' the fearless, insolent, incisive, and often belligerent critical voice that earned Poe the dread and, in some cases, respect of his contemporaries. While Poe employs language as a weapon to disarm his opponents in his reviews, Zimmerman also observes Poe's occasional stylistic blunders and points to some of the inconsistencies evident in the advice he dispenses to other writers in contrast to his own writing practice.

The glossary that accompanies the five chapters of this book is an invaluable resource to scholars and students alike who are interested in Poe's command of rhetoric. Each entry includes the name of the device in question; a brief definition or, in the case of contentious devices, several definitions; its pronunciation; its type or category; and an example taken from Poe's text that illustrates it in context. Zimmerman uses bold face to underscore the words or parts of speech in which a given device figures, an editorial choice that will be helpful to students. Furthermore, the overlap between terminological entries and the body of Zimmerman's text renders his argument more accessible. The glossary functions like a dictionary, and it can be consulted by the reader seeking a specific term or a cursory understanding of Poe's use of rhetoric, without requiring the perusal of Zimmerman's essays. Likewise, one can read the essays to gain a clear understanding of Poe's multifaceted style without needing to study the bulk of the glossary.

Edgar Allan Poe: Rhetoric and Style offers a much-needed contribution to Poe scholarship that not only goes a long way in dispelling the myth of Poe as a bad writer, but will prove enlightening to Poe scholars and enthusiasts alike. In addition to the strengths outlined above, Zimmerman's accessible prose and engaging tone make reading about rhetoric – a potentially dry subject in the hands of a less skilled writer – enjoyable. Finally, while Zimmerman's research does not pretend to be a source study of Poe's stylistic influences, it points to the merits of such an undertaking and to the necessity of ongoing research in this field.