Another very effective literary term is procatalepsis. Procatalepsis is the writer addressing a readers question before it is asked, and countering it. This literary devise is utilized in Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad. There is a passage, where Marlow contemplates the reason why pioneers would venture into the darkness of the unknown. He is addressing a question in the reader's mind, and effectively destroys it with logic. Marlow states that "Imagine the growing regrets, the longing to escape, the powerless disgust, the surrender, the hate.” He is stating, in essence, the miserable nature of the pioneer. So why would he do it? He answers this immediately. "What redeems it is the idea only". Marlow is stating that what redeems the pioneer life is an idea. This makes it a procatalepsis. These devices can also be found in culture too. Frederick Douglass once stated in a speech "I may be asked, why I am so anxious to bring this subject before the British public--why I do not confine my efforts to the United States? My answer is, first, that slavery is the common enemy of mankind, and all mankind should be made acquainted with its abominable character. My next answer is, that the slave is a man, and, as such, is entitled to your sympathy as a brother. All the feelings, all the susceptibilities, all the capacities, which you have, he has. He is a part of the human family". He anticipates the listener's questions and answers them. This makes it a procatalepsis.

This is an experiment to test the feasibility of Chris McCandless' starvation in the Alaskan brush. Here is a caloric analysis of a day for me.
Cheddar Goldfish 100g. 471 calories
Chicken 71g. 113 calories
Green beans 113g. 36 calories
PBandJ sandwich 100g. 439 calories
Pepperoni Pizza X2 28g. 62 calories
Potatoes 150g. 202 calories
Cereal 16g. 62 calories
Apple 179g. 90 calories
Soup 241g. 82 calories

Total caloric intake: 1613

I am overall surprised at this total considering how low it is. I usually take in well over 2200 calories daily. I am positive I messed up with the serving size, it being metric and all.

Conduplicatio is a literary device that shows up a lot in all sorts of contexts.  An online definition states that Conduplicatio is the technique of repeating key words or phrases in order to drive a point home. An obvious example of Conduplicatio in pop culture can easily be found in Martin Luther King Jr's speech I Have A Dream repetitively states the key word dream in order to create a more powerful affect on the listener. "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Obviously this is an example of conduplicatio. Also, these literary devices can be found in literature. In Into The Wild, there is a conduplicatio used when Chris' sister describes her parents' work habits. "Mom and Dad put in incredibly long hours. When Chris and I woke up in the morning to go to school, they’d be in the office working. When we came home in the afternoon, they’d be in the office working. When we went to bed at night, they’d be in the office working" (Into The Wild Krakauer). Notice the working key word? This is repeated to solidify the concept, thus making it a conduplicatio.

Dialectic

Dialectic is a commonly-utilized literary technique in both past and present literary pieces. The definition of a dialectic is an organized tearing down of false misconceptions and replacing them with truth. An example of dialectic can be found in Nature by the prestigious Ralph Waldo Emerson. In chapter three of this piece, entitled Beauty, Emerson asserts truth (relative to him) that he thinks it would behove the reader to know. He presents this truth in dialectic form, using reasoned arguments to make an impact. The passage states: "The world thus exists to the soul to satisfy the desire of beauty. This element I call an ultimate end. No reason can be asked or given why the soul seeks beauty. Beauty, in its largest and profoundest sense, is one expression for the universe. God is the all-fair. Truth, and goodness, and beauty, are but different faces of the same All. But beauty in nature is not ultimate. It is the herald of inward and eternal beauty, and is not alone a solid and satisfactory good. It must stand as a part, and not as yet the last or highest expression of the final cause of Nature". Emerson here is using the power of language to tear down the misconception that Beauty is not an ultimate end in and of itself, but is also intertwined with truth and goodness. He is presenting it  through reason, saying that the proof is that Beauty is not good by itself. Using this form of literature makes it dialectic. This literary device is also found in pop-culture. In Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare (which is perpetually taught in schools in America), there is a very good example of dialectic. When Marc Antony speaks to the plebeians on behalf of the late Caesar, he uses reason to persuade  them of the truth that Brutus is guilty, and Caesar was innocent. He says:

If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.

You all do know this mantle. I remember

The first time ever Caesar put it on.

'Twas on a summer’s evening in his tent,

That day he overcame the Nervii.

Look, in this place ran Cassius' dagger through.

See what a rent the envious Casca made.

Through this the well-belovèd Brutus stabbed.

And as he plucked his cursèd steel away,

Mark how the blood of Caesar followed it,

As rushing out of doors, to be resolved

If Brutus so unkindly knocked, or no.

For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar’s angel.

Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him!

This was the most unkindest cut of all.

For when the noble Caesar saw him stab,

Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,

Quite vanquished him. Then burst his mighty heart,

And, in his mantle muffling up his face,

Even at the base of Pompey’s statue,

Which all the while ran blood, great Caesar fell.

O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!

Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,

Whilst bloody treason flourished over us.

Oh, now you weep, and, I perceive, you feel

The dint of pity. These are gracious drops.

Antony here is using language to persuade the opposing members (the plebeians) of his cause. 

He is revealing truth by stating basic facts (through this Brutus stabbed, bloody treason, the blood of Caesar, ect.). He tears down the misconception that Brutus was right and replaces it with Brutus is a traitor. This makes it a dialectic.

ANTONY	Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up
	To such a sudden flood of mutiny.
	They that have done this deed are honourable:	210
	What private griefs they have, alas, I know not,
	That made them do it: they are wise and honourable,
	And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
	I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:
	I am no orator, as Brutus is;	215
	But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
	That love my friend; and that they know full well
	That gave me public leave to speak of him:
	For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
	Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,	220
	To stir men's blood: I only speak right on;
	I tell you that which you yourselves do know;