{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03202697008006743, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00969237252423093, 'mean_word_length': 5.150259067357513, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Diana and Beyond: White Femininity, National Identity, and Contemporary Media Culture

may also motivate rhetorical scholars to build on and extend the authors’ projects or to make use of their discoveries for very different aims. Some particular points of contact with each study may provide places to explore further: LaBelle references Reagan and nods to “the mode of presidential address” (164), Rodríguez touches on tropes by linking “scripts of desire” to “figures of speech” (173), and Gitelman mentions epideictic as a “framing context” that summons an audience (112). LaBelle, Rodríguez, and Gitelman all offer accounts of artifacts that strain the boundaries of textual analysis. In doing so, they remind us of elements once evoked by Roland Barthes’ (perhaps idealistic) “Theory of the Text,” the pluralities and (dis)pleasures opened up in the “social space” surrounding a cultural and historical encounter with writings, restoring some of what may have been lost in rhetorical reading practices since the textual turn was first celebrated in the 1970s. They may also guide the way down post-textual paths revealed to rhetoric in the vistas opened up during the preceding visual, spatial, and affective turns. The first issue of the Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking in 1915 contained a book review appraising Psychology of the Spoken Word. The author(s) declared: “We cannot review the text so easily ... it might as well be called the geology or the astrology of the spoken word” (100). Rather than a comprehensive overview of the book’s contents, the reviewer(s) produced a humorous and scathing description of a “confused but still hopeful” confrontation with a collection judged to be “scantily clad with ill-fitting text” and containing “some of the poorest twaddle ever printed” (100). The reviewer(s) evidently judged the book to be an inadequate account of speech, and likewise judged the conventional review to be an inadequate means for conveying the disappointing experience of reading it. I hope that the second century of this journal sees rhetoricians finding better resources to address the inadequacies of textual treatments of speech and the limitations of traditional approaches to representing rhetorical encounters. If we sense that rhetoric extends beyond the edges of a page, then curiosity should embolden us to follow where it leads.