Jay Dolmage's Breathe Upon Us An Even Flame

Jay Dolmage challenges the current ideals of rhetoric “Breathe Upon Us an Even Flame”: Hephaestus, History, and the Body of Rhetoric by reviving Hephaestus, a disabled Greek God. This rather unknown character is the very embodiment of metis allowing him to act in a world of chance (Dolmage). Using this mythical personality Dolmage is able to defend the fact that mētis must be recognized as rhetoric, and the only way to accomplish this is to write new stories that may glorify one’s imperfections by making them more important in society.
Dolmage chose to use Hephaestus as the exemplary character in his work because Hephaestus himself “was said to symbolize mētis”. Nowadays metis is defined as “any person of mixed ancestry” (Metis), however in Dolmage’s work he points out another definition that is “complex but very coherent body of mental attitudes and intellectual behavior” (Dolmage). While the meaning has evolved, it’s meaning within the context of this work must be kept in mind.
Considering that, Dolmage also considers the multiple uses for mētis. Including its use as a “pedagogical strategy”, that is it can be used to teach (Pedagogy). It is pointed out how

necessary this is for anyone, that it must be considered as rhetoric. Rhetoric is considered to be persuasive in the form of either written language or spoken language. Another thing that Dolmage mentions is that mētis “is a way to think and also a way to think about thinking”. One could argue that rhetoric does just that, so it can be determined that that is why mētis must be considered rhetoric.
This “craft of innovation” needs to be used so much more than it is at this time, and Dolmage makes that point painfully clear. And there is only one way that this may be accomplished – create new literature. Dolmage even states “I recognize the emancipatory potential of new stories in both the “material” and the social sphere.” (Open Flame). By this he likely means that not only do new stories need to be written, they need to be spoken. It is not enough for books to be written.
Which is seen as more important in this work? The importance is placed upon spoken word in this sense because “[creating] new stories and alternative traditions—different bodies—is thus a powerful move” (Dolmage). By saying this he is emphasizing the importance of tradition, which has been the medium for passing on stories for millennia. However placing the emphasis on this may deter from what he hopes to accomplish as fewer and fewer stories are created this way. Instead he should have put an emphasis on the publishing on new works rather than the creation in general.
Comparing published works to spoken works the differences are clearly drawn. Published works could live on ad infinitum. Spoken works will slowly die out. The only way published works will mutate is via translation, and even then the original is still there to go back to and translate more correctly when someone is able. With spoken works they will be told differently each time, greatly changing the story itself; not only that, but they also transform greatly when someone remembers what they hear, and attempt to recreate it in their vernacular.
Interestingly enough Hephaestus – the exemplary character in this work – was created around a time when written work wasn’t popular. Only the educated could write and there was no printing press to reproduce the work easily – any copy of this work must be handwritten and while one might assume that every copy is the exact same, in truth they will vary somewhat whether because it was changing out older words for more common, or not being able to read the handwriting. Because of this incapability works were commonly spread through spoken word.
Perhaps this is why Dolmage places the emphasis on the creation, because even though the large majority of work dies out, some does survive – and what does survive is held in the highest regard.
Dolmage is also specific in which kinds of stories must become prominent. “[He thinks] that it is important in telling a new story about disability to examine the roots of disability in Western civilization—in order to fully understand the connection between our history and changing ideas about normalcy” (Dolmage). This directly connects to Hephaestus as “his disability” is prominent throughout the work and, surprisingly, it “also has positive connotations” (Dolmage). So, why is it looked down upon so much today?
In the United States of America people with disabilities are locked away and forgotten.

This is due to a stigma that presented itself during the Vietnam era – that is the time of the Vietnam War. Countless men were drafted into a war that no one wanted to fight. A study conducted in 1980 found that “Vietnam veterans who entered the military, served and fought in Vietnam, and were released into a hostile American society were severely handicapped” (Conflict). These men who were forced to give their lives, to become disabled in many cases, were released in this “hostile” society that hated them for doing what was not a choice on their end. They should have been honored like those who fought before them in World War II, but they were completely dismissed, despised, and left to fight for their own

life.
If this never happened perhaps disabilities would be held in a higher regard as Dolmage could only hope. However he doesn’t point out anything that includes why people with disabilities are pitied, just that they are. He does take the character of Hephaestus, and brings his disability to the forefront of the paper. By doing this Dolmage reinforces his claim that Hephaestus was able to turn his disability in a way that it became his ability.
The physical embodiment of mētis, as Dolmage referred to Hephaestus (Dolmage), doesn’t seem to be much of a backing, if any, to the claim that mētis must be accepted as rhetoric. Although Dolmage already successfully proven this, at this point it is as though he is trying to tie back in to his earlier claim, and this is a failure of that attempt. Ignoring this the work can be analyzed further.
Dolmage goes back to his focus of how “there is archeological evidence that disability was actually held in high regard in the classical period” (Dolmage). He compares this finding with that where he believes that recently normalcy is only used to get rid of unwanted traits, or even people, all while reinforcing whoever is in control (Dolmage). Using this, and how disability was viewed in other Greek literature, he comes to the conclusion that “[disability] follows rhetoric and many, many bodies [were] the victims of [the] discrimination” (Dolmage).
By creating this parallel the author is comparing what prevents someone from living their life completely – a disability, to mētis and its role in rhetoric. It seems as though this is too harsh of a contrast to be able to compare them. Wanting mētis to be considered as rhetoric is completely different than wanting those with disabilities to not be harshly judged by society.
This is the point where Dolmage’s argument begins to fall apart. He is able to successfully defend why mētis should be considered rhetoric by pointing out the many benefits to this – its use as a pedagogical strategy, and its ability to aid in thinking about thinking. Then he emphasizes the importance of creating new works, written or spoken, and how it should benefit society as a whole. He is even able to talk about disability, however leaving quite a bit of important information out, and how society’s view on this must change. But the second he compares his first and last subjects the argument is tainted, he has all but succeeded, if only he had never taken it quite as far as he did.