Curry writes that “against the background of this rereading of the concepts of space and place, much that occurs today turns out to be a matter of place, not space. In fact, the concept of space typically operates either metaphorically or reflectively (680). Given Curry’s discussion of the terms “place” seem to be temporal geographical locals and “spaces” the metaphors and social dimensions that surround those. Interestingly, the Recogito tool does interesting work bridging space and place, giving users the ability to create placial awareness that connect people, places, events, and objects against the backdrop of a map. Stories, like the one I used for my foray into the tool (Eowyn Ivy’s, The Snow Child), can be retold/reconceived spatially. We change the parameters of the story, and therefore are able to analyze it from a different point of view.

As I’ve reflected on these weeks, I’ve tried to unpack how mapping relates to the work I do in composition and rhetoric. Initially I thought they had very little to do with one another. However, Curry’s article that discusses topos ended up surprising me. Indeed, the first time I heard of topos was not in relation to maps, but instead, in relation to writing and rhetoric—my current course of study. I used to teach my first-year writing students about this concept and how it related to classical rhetorical notions of argumentation. Topos (singular) or topoi (plural) are related to the Aristotelian rhetorical formulas of invention. This is the part of composing an argument where the rhetor (the speaker or writer) is coming up with their thesis in relation to their subject of discussion. “Topoi,” therefore, have been conceived of as topics. So seeing the word “topos” used in a discussion of maps was a strange convergence of worlds for me. How do mapping arguments and mapping places compare, I had to ask myself? And, just as important, how do they diverge?

“Indeed, if the word topos itself emerged after the invention of writing, it is nonetheless useful to try to rethink the topographic against the background of verbal activities that do not involve writing. I find telling the connection between the rhetorician’s use of ‘‘topics’’ and the use in oratory of memory systems that rely upon the construction of a memory palace. It has long been recognized that while users of Western languages are, by and large, notoriously bad at holding lists of unrelated things in memory, when those things are embedded in a narrative or associated with symbols they become far easier to remember.” (683)

Curry gives us some insight into the relationship between space and argumentation here. He discusses how topos has much of its initial history to credit to writing. I find it equally telling that when we, teachers of writing, instruct students how to compose scholarly pieces we often ask them to “carve out a space in the conversation” or “survey the landscape of the literature.” We seem beholden to metaphors of mapping to conceive of the way we construct arguments, forward claims, and respond to counterarguments.

Curry also hearkens back to classical rhetoric’s investment in memory (as opposed to written language) and the way that arguments were conceived of (or “mapped”) in ways that would make sense orally. Ancient Greeks were wary of writing because they were worried about how it would affect memory (which they greatly valued). Contemporary scholars of reading also interestingly note that as we read physical books our minds remember where on the page, and where in the book certain things happen. We “map” stories by their places and spaces. This is something that reading online confuses for contemporary students—as we are unable to remember where things are in the same way that we can with print texts. It messes up our memories, our brains.

So ultimately, even though I didn’t expect there would be much about my area of expertise represented in these mapping weeks, I’ve been very surprised! There is a great deal of convergence, actually.