English departments are increasingly under pressure to offer writing courses online, but research that informs effective pedagogies—including effective ways to respond to students’ drafts—is still limited.

This article links failed reform to failed education through a case study of an annual collaborative revision of a program textbook in the Composition Program at the University of California at Irvine. Review of successive editions of the program’s Student Guide to Writing at UCI reveals a progressive retreat from the program’s pedagogical commitments and the reappearance of product-oriented instruction.

Christine Ross, Education Reform and the Limits of Discourse: Rereading Collaborative Revision of a Composition Program's Textbook, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Dec., 2003), pp. 302-329

In the spring of 2000, following the completion of a Ph.D. specializing in rhetoric and composition, I taught my first literature course: a writing-intensive survey of African American literature. The course, open to all students, regardless of major, used both traditional literature assignments, such as close readings, and more rhetorical assignments that asked the students to “join a conversation” on issues such as gender relations and African American education. After years of teaching argument in rhetoric and composition courses, I was excited about bringing some of the methods that had proved successful in this environment to the literature curriculum: peer review, audience analysis, guidance through the writing process, intensive revision, writing conferences. These were elements of writing instruction that I felt had been missing from my own undergraduate study in English literature, and I was eager to share them with my students. I envisioned transforming the lower-level writing course in literature by guiding students through the writing process and encouraging them to think of their writing in terms of the impact it would have on specific readers. The result was a disaster. Strategies that had elicited thoughtful revision from my rhetoric students fell flat in the literature classroom. For instance, I had had wonderful success with a peer review technique developed by Barbara Sitko (1993) in which students read a peer’s paper aloud and paused at the end of every sentence to summarize the main point of the essay and to predict what would appear next. My composition students had found this

Preview this article: Opinion: Revision as a Critical Practice, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/65/6/collegeenglish1305-1.gif

ing logic of the market is intricately, if silently, bound to theories of autonomous creativity, the writer is surely caught in a bind. Considering the trials of Coleridge and Wordsworth is enough to drive one into the arms of Trollope, abjuring forever the cycle of hypomania and depression, inspiration and silence. If the market is inescapable, turn its discipline to good effect. Such is Trollope's response to Romanticism: There are those [...] who think that the man who works with his imagination should allow himself to wait till-inspiration moves him. When I have heard such a doctrine preached, I have hardly been able to repress my scorn. To me it would not be more absurd if the shoemaker were to wait for inspiration, or the tallow-chandler for the divine moment of melting (102). Trollope scorns those who wait for inspiration, and embraces the analogy of novel writing to shoe making, pointedly refusing the Romantic separation of Art from craft: A shoemaker when he has finished one pair of shoes does not sit down and contemplate his work in idle satisfaction [...]. The shoemaker who so indulged himself would be without wages half his time. It is the same with a professional writer of books [.. .]. I had now quite accustomed myself to begin a second pair as soon as the first was out of my hands (265). God is on the side not so much of the angels, as of the man who settles down to do his work here on earth, for idleness is a vice, industriousness a virtue. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.211 on Sat, 25 Jun 2016 05:12:48 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Writer's Block, Merit, and the Market 637 Just do it. This familiar marketing slogan is applicable to all walks of life, it seems. Donald Murray, in The Craft of Revision, echoes Trollope and Boice, too, when he urges writers to [make] writing a habit [ . .]. The writing becomes expected in the way you are expected to wait on tables, show up for your job in the emergency room, deliver papers. Roger Simon of the Baltimore Sun explained, 'There's no such thing as writer's block. My father drove a truck for 40 years. And never once did he wake up in the morning and say: 'I have truck driver's block today. I am not going to work' (17). There's something bracing about this. Murray appeals to the complex network of social relations any worker must enter into, which carry obligations that must be honored. The market makes us all interdependent and we are all expected to work, indeed, required to work if we need to earn our incomes. So Murray, like Trollope, urges one to internalize these obligations, which are both ethical and economic, and thus take advantage of the support this network can provide. Replace the Romantic agonies of inspiration with an ethic of work and you will be rewarded. You will have your writing, your copyright, your income, and your peace of mind. Yet the work ethic is by no means our salvation, as Max Weber's magisterial study, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, makes clear. Weber argues that Protestants developed in the seventeenth century an ethic that he calls worldly asceticism (120). This ethic is motivated first by religious belief and later, in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, by the force of capitalist accumulation. For Calvin, the purposeful organization and arrangement of the cosmos is evidence of a divine plan, even if the will of God is mysterious. Obvious in the order of the natural world, this organization extends to the order of society as well, in which every person has a calling, a job to do. Those who are in a state of grace glorify God by fulfilling his commandments, which providentially organize social relations. Each individual Christian must therefore work in his or her calling, regardless of his or her desires, and must work methodically, honestly, prudently, steadfastly, all for the glory of God. As Weber observes, Labor in a calling was [.. .] the ascetic activitypar excellence (133). Alone in an individual relation with God, quit of priestly mediation and Roman Catholic acts of penance, the Protestant went to work and prospered. Such labor is endless since it is not a goal in itself; done conscientiously, it will yield riches on earth that represent prospectively (given the grace of God) the Protestant's reward in heaven. I sketch the theological dimensions of the Protestant ethic to stress the fact that it is predicated on deeply felt belief, and to recall how inextricable this belief is from the discourse of political economy. Weber argues that the logic of utilitarian political economy is an effect of Protestant theology and religious belief. Calvinism holds that This content downloaded from 157.55.39.211 on Sat, 25 Jun 2016 05:12:48 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Introduction Part I: Premises and Foundations 1. Illiteracy at Oxford and Harvard: Reflections on the Inability to Write 2. A Map of Writing in Terms of Audience and Response The Uses of Binary Thinking Part II: The Generative Dimension 4. Freewriting and the Problem of Wheat and Tares 5. Closing My Eyes as I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience 6. Toward a Phenomenology of Freewriting Part III: Speech, Writing, and Voice Part III: Speech, Writing, and Voice 7. The Shifting Relationships Between Speech and Writing 8. Voice in Literature 9. Silence: A Collage 10. What Is Voice in Writing? Part IV: Discourses 11. Reflections on Academic Discourse: How It Relates to Freshmen and Colleagues 12. In Defense of Private Writing 13. The War Between Reading and Writing - and How to End It 14. Your Cheatin' Art: A Collage Part V: Teaching 15. Inviting the Mother Tongue: Beyond Mistakes, Bad English, and Wrong Language 16. High Stakes and Low Stakes in Assigning and Responding to Writing 17. Breathing Life into the Text 18. Using the Collage for Collaborative Writing 19. Getting Along Without Grades - and Getting Along With Them Too 20. Starting the Portfolio Experiment at SUNY Stony Brook Pat Belanoff, co-author 21. Writing an Assessment in the Twenty-First Century: A Utopian View

When two-year college students take time to write at length, paying more attention to their own feelings and those of their readers through regular response and revision, they write better, according to the results of a three-year project funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

Contemporary scholarship on classical imitation tends to analyze the practice by dividing it up based on the subjects and objects of imitation. The result of this common procedure has been an anachronistic solidification of disciplinary lines among rhetoric, philosophy, and poetics. An equally relevant effect has been the polarization of the practices of imitation and those concerned with invention. This paper seeks to elaborate a different taxonomy with which to approach imitation, one that focuses primarily on the encounter between subjects and objects in the actual practice of imitation. By attending to the complex relations of repetition and variation across disciplinary lines, this new taxonomy offers insight into the often overlooked connections between imitation and invention in the intersecting realms of rhetoric, philosophy, and poetics.

Beginning in 1999, City University of New York (CUNY), significantly increased its commitment to Writing-Across-theCurriculum (WAC) by funding faculty development, Writing Fellows, and Writing Intensive courses on the majority of its 18 campuses. With this renewed interest in WAC, administrators and faculty across the disciplines are increasingly taking responsibility for using writing processes to foster learning and thinking as well as teaching writing in the disciplines. As teachers use writing more as a communicative tool in the content areas, how they respond to students’ writing becomes increasingly important. As a WAC Coordinator at Bronx Community College (BCC), I have had the opportunity to work with faculty in professional development seminars. A common concern teachers often raise is how best to respond to students’ writing. In turn, I, too, have often wondered how students in my classes react to my feedback on their written texts. Careful consideration of what we say and how we say it is an important part of good teaching practice. Teachers typically invest much time and effort in responding to students’ texts with the assumption that their feedback will help improve students’ writing. Teacher feedback takes on greater significance when students are revising their writing through multiple drafts. But what do students really think about our comments? Do our words help students move their thinking and writing forward on subsequent drafts?

E-mail peer response teaches students about audience and text more effectively than synchronous peer response.

I have a bad attitude about grading. Actually, I have a bad attitude overall. It’s sad but true. I think that what I do as a teacher is important, but I think that my family and my own interests are even more important. And I have come to see the wisdom of the saying “No one ever put ‘I should have spent more time at the office’ on his tombstone.” It may be a cliche, but we really do get only so many heartbeats. So I try to keep things in perspective and use my time wisely. One of the areas in which my attitude has surfaced is the grading of papers. I used to spend a great deal of time responding to each paper, reading carefully and identifying fully any possible flaw by writing extensive comments in the margins. I would then hand the papers back to my students, hoping that they would read my responses and learn from them. I was very much in tune with the tradition of composition that Edward M. White (1996: 13) critiques, hoping that “an individual personal response will lead a student to revision or, more likely, to better work on the next paper.” I have come to realize that, for the most part, I was wasting my time. In his landmark essay “The Listening Eye,” Donald M. Murray (1979) does writing teachers a great service by sharing his experiences and insights on the subjects of grading and student-teacher conferences. I suspect that Murray is right when he suggests that most students read our comments only to learn what grades they have received and, briefly, why. Once their curiosity has been sated, they seldom use their papers as tools for improving either their writing or their understanding of the subjects on which they have written. Unless revision is required, it is highly unlikely that they will work through their errors, learning by producing improved versions of their papers. How often, after all, do we go back to a conference paper that we have written and work on it if we are not trying to prepare it for publication (or another conference)? There are other reasons that providing feedback to students through written comments is often a waste of time. According to a study by Nancy Sommers (1999), the time-consuming nature of grading forces many teachers to rely on generalities, such as “Pay attention to your reader” or “Avoid passive voice.” Such comments are so vague that they have only limited usefulness even

Pedagogical triangulation is a threefold method for teaching that involves a holistic approach to classroom collaboration. The specific elements of pedagogical triangulation are described, along with the results of applying this approach in a first-semester college English class.

In the second edition of Writing Without Teachers (1998), Peter Elbow issues an explicit "challenge. . . for people to engage me in a theoretical context" (xxv, xxvii). When Elbow is read "carefully" as he requests, much more is at stake than the reputation of one "expressivist" (xxvii). For John Dewey's pragmatist philosophy provides a theoretical framework that not only highlights the strengths of Elbow's theory but also exposes some flaws of social theory and practices so that they can be revised.

304 RHETORICA by being overly literal. He also inserts sub-titles to what the Rhet. Al. deals with next, which aid the reader immensely There are 761 notes at the bottom of each page of translation and in almost one hundred pages (pp. 117-201) of "Notes Complémentaires". These contain an abundance of cross-references to other ancient sources (especially identifying relevant passages in other rhetorical works which are very helpful), while references to modern liter­ ature (mostly French at that) are kept to a minimum. This is hardly the place for a detailed critique, so let me give just one example of a topic in which I have my own scholarly interest: Rhet. Al. 29 on the exordium. Chiron gives us almost fifty detailed notes, though curiously little mention is made of the Demosthenic exordia or the Budé text of the exordia edited by R. Clavaud (1974). The edition also has an index of proper names (pp. 203-205), a lengthy index of Greek terms (pp. 207-258), and a concordance of previous major texts with differing divisions: Erasmus (1539 and 1550), Bekker in the Berlin Aristotle (1881), Hammer's revision of Spengel in the Teubner (1894), and Fuhrmann's recent Teubner (pp. 259-268). Chiron cites the works of other scholars on the Rhet. Al., works that are mostly articles, of which some are lengthy and others only notes. None can compare to what Chiron gives us in his Budé edition, an edition that is also testimony to the general quality and trustworthiness of the Budé series. Chiron's detailed assessment and critique of the Rhet. Al. will make his edition useful for anyone working on Greek rhetoric, oratory, or indeed interested in Greek literature. It is an important addition to scholarship, and for that he should be commended. Ian Worthington University ofMissouri-Columbia Pierre Chiron, Un rhéteur méconnu: Démétrios (Ps.-Démétrios de Phalère). Essai sur les mutations de la théorie du style à l'époque hellénistique (Paris: Vrin, 2001) 448pp. Dopo vari anni dalla sua pubblicazione del PH di Demetrio per la collana "Les Belles Lettres" (Démétrios, Du Style, Parigi 1993) Pierre Chiron ci offre adesso un'analisi molto approfondita di questo trattato nel tentativo, argomentato sempre con grande cura, di contribuire a risolvere alcune delle difficoltà che hanno tormentato da secoli gli studiosi di questo testo. Oltre alla prefazione di M. Patillon una introduzione ed una conclusione fanno da cornice a ben nove lunghi capitoli nei quali l'autore non solo fa il punto sullo status quaestionis ed affronta problemi di datazione e di attribuzione, ma anche esamina in modo capillare la dottrina esposta da Demetrio. Non soddisfatto dei criteri adottati dai suoi predecessori, Chiron pensa infatti che sia opportuno cambiare metodo e "passer à une étude axée sur le texte Reviews 305 lui-même, ses tensions internes, ses présupposés et les diverses sources dont il laisse entrevoir l'utilisation" (p. 32). Questo spiega dunque perché il discorso sull attribuzione del trattato e sulla sua datazione, iniziato nel primo capitolo con la presentazione delle varie, a suo parère insoddisfacenti, soluzioni, riprenda solo alla fine, nel nono. Qui Chiron si sofferma su quattro question! principali (1. Le PH peut-il avoir été écrit par Démétrios de Phalère? 2. Quels sont les arguments en faveur d'une datation "haute"? 3. Une datation "basse" est-elle soutenable? 4. Dans quelle mesure peut-on préciser une datation intermédiaire?) aile quali, dopo una minuziosa analisi dei dati a disposizione e delle ipotesi già fatte da altri studiosi, dà risposte che, per quanto mai categoriche, lasciano comunque chiaramente intravedere la sua posizione: il PH sarebbe opéra di un retore di nome Demetrio attivo alla fine del II o all'inizio del I sec. a.C. La sua formazione peripatetica sarebbe dovuta all'utilizzo diretto delle opéré di Aristotele e di Teofrasto che Apellicone di Teo aveva reso nuovamente accessibili ad Atene dopo il loro sotterramento da parte di Neleo di Scepsi e dei suoi eredi. Giunto a Roma forse nell'86, dopo la vittoria di Silla, insieme alla biblioteca di...

Reviews 303 in achieving his neosophistic goal to put ancient, sophistic rhetoric on the road to journey toward contemporary concerns (p. 58). Michelle Baliff The University of Georgia Pierre Chiron (ed.), Pseudo-Aristote, Rhétorique à Alexandre (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, Collection des Universités de France, 2002) CLXXIV + 269pp. The Rhetorica ad Alexandrian (hereafter Rhet. Ah) is one of the two major classical Greek rhetorical handbooks, the other being Aristotle's Rhetoric, and is commonly viewed as the poorer of the two works. It takes its name from the dedication at the start of the work: "Aristotle to Alexander [the Great]: Greetings". Scholars and students who have had to use Loeb edition of the Rhet. Ah, edited by H. Rackham (Aristotle Vol. XVI), published in 1937 (reprinted in 1987), or the Teubner edition of M. Fuhrmann, published in 1966, will welcome with great delight Chiron's edition. Chiron's long introduction and copious, detailed notes, in addition to text and translation, make this book a valuable scholarly resource (though anyone without a reading knowledge of French will still have to use the Loeb of course). The very long Introduction (pp. VII-CLXXIV) is practically a book in itself. Chiron covers in great detail the structure of the Rhet. Al. (pp. VII-XL), its date and authorship (pp. XL-CVII), its relationship to ancient rhetoric and the influence of ancient rhetoricians on it (pp. CVII-CLV), the manuscript tradition (CLV-CLXVII), and finally the various manuscripts of the work and editions (pp. CLXIX-CLXXIV). The date and authorship of the Rhet. Al. are controversial issues; seldom has a dedication caused so much trouble. Chiron assigns the Rhet. Al. to the period 340-300, and for stylistic and philosophical reasons rejects, rightly, the attribution to Aristotle. Chiron seems content to follow Quintilian (3.4.9), who ascribes the authorship to another of Alexander's teachers, Anaximenes of Lampsacus. This is the generally accepted author of the Rhet. Al., but even so Chiron urges caution, given that the text may well have been altered from its original composition, and is even a composite. This conclusion, not novel to be sure, comes from a very detailed analysis of the "source tradition" on the Rhet. Al. and a comparison of it with Aristotle's Rhetoric. So too does Chiron's view on the influence of the Rhetoric on the Rhet. Al. The text and translation are on pp. 2-116; Chiron follows for the most part the divisions of Bekker's text of 1881, and the apparatus criticus contains the variant readings pertinent to Chiron's text. The Rhet. Al. is not an easy work to read; it is full of technical Greek terms, descriptions of the various functions of speeches, types of examples to give, and so on. Chiron's transla­ tion is good, faithfully reproducing the Greek while not causing confusion 304 RHETORICA by being overly literal. He also inserts sub-titles to what the Rhet. Al. deals with next, which aid the reader immensely There are 761 notes at the bottom of each page of translation and in almost one hundred pages (pp. 117-201) of "Notes Complémentaires". These contain an abundance of cross-references to other ancient sources (especially identifying relevant passages in other rhetorical works which are very helpful), while references to modern liter­ ature (mostly French at that) are kept to a minimum. This is hardly the place for a detailed critique, so let me give just one example of a topic in which I have my own scholarly interest: Rhet. Al. 29 on the exordium. Chiron gives us almost fifty detailed notes, though curiously little mention is made of the Demosthenic exordia or the Budé text of the exordia edited by R. Clavaud (1974). The edition also has an index of proper names (pp. 203-205), a lengthy index of Greek terms (pp. 207-258), and a concordance of previous major texts with differing divisions: Erasmus (1539 and 1550), Bekker in the Berlin Aristotle (1881), Hammer's revision of Spengel in the Teubner (1894), and Fuhrmann's recent Teubner (pp. 259-268). Chiron cites the works of other scholars on the Rhet. Al., works that are mostly...

Addresses past and current issues concerning teacher response to first-year student writing and suggests that teacher intervention should be viewed as a writing process itself. Describes the author’s own process of responding to student writing, which he hasfound to be very effective. Concludes that individual teachers must decide for themselves what ways of responding best suit their teaching styles.

Writing Across the Curriculum places considerable demands not only upon the students in writing intensive courses, but also on the writing center staff to whom they go for help. This paper looks at some of the problems raised by tutors in this situation, and presents a case study in which such problems are negotiated in the course of a consultation between a student and a tutor. The kinds of revision resulting from this process are explored for the light they can throw on the relationship between language and content, as well as the relationships among discipline teachers, tutors, students, and the students’ texts. One aim of the Writing Across the Curriculum movement is that every teacher should be a writing teacher. However, while WAC assignments provide opportunities to write, the work of helping students to do it often falls to tutors in writing centers; and both tutors and teachers have expressed uneasiness about such consultations for a number of reasons. First, WAC assignments can challenge the tutors’ priority of respecting students’ ownership of their texts. What does it mean to own your text if you are writing on a topic set by somebody else, drawing on other people’s ideas, and conforming to conventions of structure and voice imposed by a discipline? Conventions of one sort or another have always surrounded writing, and even students’ “personal” writing is often largely a matter of reproducing commonplaces (see, e.g., Bartholemae). However, it is in the context of writing for unfamiliar disciplines that students and tutors are forced to confront these issues, identify the constraints and opportunities peculiar to writing in each discipline, and work within them. This brings

Shows how an editing assignment emphasizing punctuation can help students in a first-year writing class discover new ideas and perspectives as part of the revision process. Considers a class that experimented with editing punctuation for a dual purpose--as a revision heuristic as well as for correctness. Reconsiders editing and revision assignments to take better advantage of editing’s generative powers.

This article explores the role of embodied knowledge and embodied representation in the joint revision of a small section of a large technical document by personnel from two organizations: a city government and a consulting engineering firm. The article points to differences between the knowledge and the representation practices of personnel from the two organizations as manifested in their words and gestures during the revision task, and it points to the gestures of the city personnel as a principal means by which their greater embodied knowledge of channel easements becomes distributed across the group as a whole. The article concludes by pointing to some advantages of considering acts of writing as embodied practices and by indicating a number of related questions that should be pursued in subsequent investigations of literacy in modern workplaces.

Considers how constructing a hopeful professional discourse requires substantial revision of current professional discursive practices. Notes that the search for local knowledge and a shared, more hopeful discourse has rekindled interest in the rhetorical as well as material authority of ideologies, in various forms of writing collected under the overdetermined rubric "the personal." (SG)

In this archaeological investigation of the work of Louise Rosenblatt, we read and highlighted all text-level differences between the 1st (1938) and 5th (1995) editions of Literature as Exploration. We categorized each type of revision, traced a sample of each to the edition in which the change was made, and then extended our analysis to 70 passages.

This article describes the importance of annotation to reading and writing practices and reviews new technologies that complicate the ways annotation can be used to support and enhance traditional reading, writing, and collaboration processes. Important directions for future research are discussed, with emphasis on studying how professionals read and annotate, how readers might use annotations that have been produced by others, and how the interface of an annotation program affects collaboration and communication on revision. In each area, the authors emphasize issues and methods that will be productive for enhancing theories of workplace and classroom communication as well as implications for the optimal design of annotation technologies.

This study explores the relation between fluency in writing and linguistic experience and provides information about the processes involved in written text composition. The authors conducted a think-aloud protocol study with native speakers of English who were learning French or German. Analysis reveals that as the writer's experience with the language increases, fluency (as measured by words written per minute) increases, the average length of strings of words proposed between pauses or revision episodes increases, the number of revision episodes decreases, and more of the words that are proposed as candidate text get accepted. To account for these results, the authors propose a model of written language production and hypothesize that the effect of linguistic experience on written fluency is mediated primarily by two internal processes called the translator and the reviser.

This article details study results comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing as vehicles for online peer response. The study draws on Clark and Brennan's theory of communicative “grounding,” which predicts that participants use different techniques for achieving mutual knowledge depending on the type of media being used. Content analysis of transcripts from both types of response sessions showed that when using e-mail, students made significantly greater reference to documents, their contents, and rhetorical contexts than when using synchronous conferencing. Students made greater reference to both writing and response tasks using synchronous chats than when using e-mail. Students' individual media preferences showed no significant differences in terms of message formulation, reception, and usefulness of comments in aiding revision. However, in a forced comparison scale, students rated e-mail more serious and helpful than chats, which were then rated more playful than e-mail. Implications of the study's results and areas for future research are also discussed.

Notes that finding a way to integrate grading and responding in a manner that promotes learning through revision is one major challenge for composition instructors. Argues that instructors must find a way to shape their classrooms shifting the emphasis from “getting it right the first time,” to learning to see writing as an activity that evolves and improves through revision.

Offers 4 brief descriptions from college writing teachers of activities they use successfully. Describes using a “round robin” process for group writing and revision; addressing stylistic and grammatical issues by using anonymous student writing; “showing” versus “telling” words; and using film to model “larger” meaning in personal narrative.

Although the usefulness of evaluating documents has become generally accepted among communication professionals, the supporting research that puts evaluation practices empirically to the test is only beginning to emerge. This article presents an overview of the available research on troubleshooting evaluation methods. Four lines of research are distinguished concerning the validity of evaluation methods, sample composition, sample size, and the implementation of evaluation results during revision.

Considers how the revising skills of basic writing students improve when they receive both inductive and deductive teacher feedback. Finds that students who received inductive feedback changed their largest percent of errors when given oral conferences and students who received deductive feedback changed their smallest number of errors when given oral feedback.

This article examines the production of new history textbooks that appeared after the breakup of the Soviet Union. It is argued that the radical revisions in official history in this context are shaped by the Bakhtinian process of “hidden dialogicality,” whereby new, post-Soviet narratives respond to earlier Soviet narratives in various ways. It is argued that different forms of hidden dialogicality are employed to revise official accounts of the Russian Civil War and World War II. In the former case, new texts respond to their Soviet precursors through processes of “re-emplotment,” whereas in the case of World War II, the plot is left largely unchanged, but the main characters are changed. Although many political, cultural, and economic forces play a role in the revision of any official history, it is argued that the importance of hidden dialogicality between narrative forms needs to be taken into account as well.

Reviews 233 plutôt: parce que rhéteur) en musicien: les idées sont des thèmes, les sujets sont des instruments. Pierre-Louis Malosse Stephen D. O'Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, ix + 314 pp. Endings, like beginnings, have always fascinated us; thus, speculative accounts of the world's beginning (etiologies) and its ending (eschatologies) have engendered controversial philosophies and gripping narratives. As we approach the end of a millenium, eschatological speculation can only be expected to increase; and thus, Arguing the Apocalypse is a timely contribution to rhetorical history and rhetorical theory. It is also broadly interdisciplinary, carefully researched, and intelligently written. The book's author, Stephen O'Leary, studied comparative religion at Harvard before going on to graduate work in Communication Studies at Northwestern; this book is a revision of his dissertation, and it is marked by the influence of both its director (argumentation theorist Tom Goodnight) and one of its readers (Bernard McGinn, a historian of medieval theology). With a few exceptions, the author has purged his book of the stylistic residues of the much despised "dissertation" genre. Nevertheless, as in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, the first ninety pages will test the readers' mettle; only if they are able to wade through the complexities of the theory will they earn their just reward: two rhetorical histories that are fascinating (and at times, even "page-turners"). Yet there are those first ninety pages. Chapter 1 begins by defining apocalypse—a subset of eschatological discourse that "makes manifest a vision of ultimate destiny, rendering immediate to human audiences the ultimate End of the cosmos in the Last Judgment" (pp. 5-6). Given the powerful appeal of such discourse through the ages, the author suspects that rhetorical theory will be useful in showing how it has shaped human 234 RHETORICA thought and action within particular cultural milieux. Chapter 2 sets out three important topoi of apocalyptic discourse: time, evil, and authority. These topoi are ripe for rhetorical analysis, since they involve not only the intellect but the whole person. O'Leary provides thumbnail sketches of the typical accounts of these three topoi, suggesting that apocalyptic discourse attempts to address certain aporiae that have been left by such accounts. In chapter 3, O'Leary develops the dramatic frames of comedy and tragedy, through which he will view various apocalyptic movements. Traditional Christian eschatology, he argues, accented the comic frame by emphasizing God's complete sovereignty in bringing about the end of time; the divine plan is inscrutible, and we can neither predict the end nor bring it about. But this view still acknowledged an identifiable end, in which evil and time would be no more; and this created the rhetorical space for a "tragic" apocalyptic eschatology, in which God brings the world to a catastrophic close (an event that will be survived only by those who know what to look for, and when to look). "Once an audience has accepted the eschatological argument that evil will be both eliminated and justified in the Last Judgment...their experience of evil will create a hope and expectation for this Judgment that still requires satisfaction" (p. 81). Thus, in apocalyptic rhetoric, "the evils of the present day are pyramided into a structure of cosmic significance" (p. 83). This arouses ever more eager anticipation of the consummation of history. Apocalyptic rhetoric thus tends to be enormously persuasive in the short term. While often blithely dismissed as the ranting of fanatics, it has mobilized thousands, indeed millions, of adherents—a claim that O'Leary will demonstrate in the historical sketches that fill most of the remainder of the book. The next four chapters examine two of the most important apocalyptic movements in the United States. Chapter 4 chronicles William Miller's rise from obscure farmer, to sought-after lecturer, to religious figurehead, to discredited prophet; the chapter also shows why Millerism should be analyzed as a rhetorical movement. In chapter 5, O'Leary examines the particular forms of Millerite argument, showing why they were found persuasive by certain auditors. Chapter 6 jumps ahead some more than a century, examining the more...

This is a piece about language and how we evaluate the work of young writers as they learn to express themselves in writing. The authors' focus is on current reforms in writing assessment, including the brief life of the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) writing portfolios, and how they rarely address the vibrant role of language—the work and play of words—in students' writing. Through audio taped interviews with two elementary and two middle school students and their teachers, as well as the written artifacts in the students' portfolios, we analyzed the patterns of the students' writing and the comments of teachers and peers on their work. In this article, language in writing is metaphorically compared to “the clay that makes the pot,” emphasizing that young writers want to startle, want to engage readers with refreshing and surprising language—but few are provided the guidance for how to do it. The authors' central point is that writing revolves around criticism, but if the assessment stays on the surface and encourages word substitution over content revision, then the criticism may not be helpful in pushing the generative aspect of writing: the work of language.

Presents eight separate short descriptions of teaching tips or classroom activities for composition classes submitted by teachers, including tips on writing exchanges, grammar problems, peer evaluation, revision, mock quizzes, critical thinking regarding television news, computer–assisted commenting, and an educational and entertaining end–of–term review activity period.

Describes how instructors at two different colleges in Montana (a tribal college and a distant community college) collaboratively teach composition courses (using the same reading and assignments, and doing peer revision for each other). Describes how this approach breaks through cultural, ideological, intellectual "containments;" engages in academic discourse; and enters into new discourse communities.

This book undertakes a general framework within which to consider the complex nature of the writing task in English, both as a first, and as a second language. The volume explores varieties of writing, different purposes for learning to write extended text, and cross-cultural variation among second-language writers.The volume overviews textlinguistic research, explores process approaches to writing, discusses writing for professional purposes, and contrastive rhetoric. It proposes a model for text construction as well as a framework for a more general theory of writing. Later chapters, organised around seventy-five themes for writing instruction are devoted to the teaching of writing at the beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels. Writing assessment and other means for responding to writing are also discussed.William Grabe and Robert Kaplan summarise various theoretical strands that have been recently explored by applied linguists and other writing researchers, and draw these strands together into a coherent overview of the nature of written text. Finally they suggest methods for the teaching of writing consistent with the nature, processes and social context of writing.

Aims to redefine what happens in the margins through a practice called “sideshadowing,” adapted from Bakhtinian theorist Gary Saul Morson’s examination of narrative technique. States that sideshadowing redirects the attention to the present moment, its multiple conflicts, and its multiple possibilities. Argues for sideshadowing’s potential to transform students’ (and teachers’) understandings of what a “good” essay is.

In his 1829 Appeal to Coloured Citizens of World, a militant condemnation of evils of slavery and a prophetic call for a potentially violent end to institution, African-American abolitionist David Walker demands, See your Declaration Americans! ! ! Do you understand your own language? (75). Walker's question highlights a fundamental and enduring paradox: in spite of centrality of Declaration of Independence to our nation's founding and to America's self-definition, continual reinterpretation of text and controversies over its meaning and significance are endemic to national discourse. Antebellum Americans faced a particular theoretical and exegetical problem with respect to Declaration of Independence. Nineteenth-century rhetoric often elevates document to a religious significance in mythologizing founding of America, idealizing creation of a completely new nation dedicated to liberty and (Wills, Inventing xvi-xxii; Wills, Lincoln 86-89, 100-03, 10910). Yet many antebellum Americans supported slavery and opposed full civil rights for free African Americans. Supporters of slavery engaged in complicated gymnastics in order to support ideals of American Revolution as well as nation's peculiar institution. Many proslavery rhetors argued that, based on Founding Fathers' intentions, Declaration's promises of freedom and did not include African Americans. Another argument suggested that term equality did not connote that all Americans should have same rights. Some supporters of slavery even downplayed significance of articulation of certain rights in Declaration of Independence.' Within this context, African-American abolitionists who wished to feature Declaration of Independence and related themes of American Revolution in their antislavery rhetoric could not rely on conventional interpretations. They needed to appropriate these topoi, redefining them in service of abolition. Celeste Michelle Condit and John Louis Lucaites demonstrate that antebellum AfricanAmerican men crafted a concept of that countered proslavery formulations, using rhetorical revision of Declaration of Independence to extend scope of terms such as equality, liberty, and human rights (69-98). Condit and Lucaites emphasize rhetoric that is, in Gary Woodward's terms, primarily adaptory-appealing to common ground with an audience and aiming to reduce dissonant messages that clash with their beliefs (28-30). In adaptory rhetoric, the expectations of others form basis of a persuasive situation, and rhetor attempts to adapt message to avoid a clash with audience's

couple of years ago, very early in semester, one of my first-semester composition students wrote a personal narrative in which he confessed to murder. In Life on City Streets he described receiving instructions over phone and then proceeding to kill a nameless victim in cold blood. The paper disturbingly lacked remorse; student explained to me later that it was intended to show what he had had to do to survive on streets. It was way short of assigned length and very poorly written. Of course I had questions about authenticity of narrative. Also, I confess that in first, dismaying, how-do-Irespond-to-this moments after I read this paper, thought crossed my mind-as indeed it may be crossing your minds right now-that it is perfectly possible to go through an entire career without having to confront a paper such as this ... Some weeks later, when I shared this paper at a professional meeting with colleagues across my district, almost all of them thought that narrative was real, not fiction, though personally I have doubts to this day. Some advised various approaches one could take to get at the truth, while at least a couple pointed out that as an officer of college I was obligated to turn whole matter over to deans and to police. But, leaving aside that I had never thought of myself in quite that way, there was really not enough evidence to take such a step. Instead, I asked student to see me in conference, and when he finally kept his appointment, we discussed paper in more detail. He repeated several times that murder had really happened, and we negotiated a revision which would expand narrative, clarify thesis, define some terms, and provide indispensable details of context. Then we set up another conference where he would bring in a draft of revision. But, although he completed one other assignment in course, student continued to attend class only rarely, never came to a second

Assignments appear in every chapter. I. EXPLORING CONCEPTS. 1. Seeing Rhetoric Through Media. Overview - Key Terms: Rhetoric, Media, Text. Keeping a Journal. Issues. Genres - Observing and Classifying Texts. Texts as Myths - Reading Takes Place From Within Belief Systems. Jennifer Ditri, Cheerleaders are Athletes, Too! Reading News and Popular Texts - Practice of Critical Reading. 2. Reading Media. Overview - Reading Interactively. Issues. What's a Medium? - Definition and Background of the Term. Learning From the Media. Being a Raymond Williams, Keyword: Consumer. Doing Without Media. Journal Entries: Marci Nowak, Jennifer Ditri, Mark Maxson, Stacey McAfee, Michael Halstead, Meredith Roedel. Clutter and Context - Ways to Deal with Overload. Strategies for Reading S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda S. Lichter, Who Are the Elite? Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon, Real Elite. Conventions - Noticing What is Taken for Granted. Conventions in Writing and Writing Classes. Bill McKibben, 7:00 a.m. II. MEDIA AND PURPOSES FOR WRITING. 3. Making Use of Observations - From Prewriting to Drafting. Overview - What Critical Reading of Can Add to the Writing Issues. Writing as Your Medium - Genres and Conventions in Speech and Writing. William Stafford, A Way of Writing. Writing Essays as a Conventional Act - Crossover Between Conventions in Texts and in Writing. Broadcast News, Tom Gives Aaron Some Tips on Reading the Journal Entries: Teri Hurst. How Writers Write - Myth of the Born Writer. George Plimpton, Interview with Ernest Hemingway Karen Kurt Tiel, Note About The Loop Writing Process. Prewriting - Devices for Exploring What You and Your Readers Know. Drafting - Pulling it All Together. Readers' Roles - Text Invites Us to Play Along. Cassandra Amesley, How to Watch Star Trek. Readers' Roles in Essays: Linda Weltner, Joys of Mediocrity Kirkpatrick Sale, Fighting the Darkness Danielle Smith, Publishers' Clearing House. 4. Gathering and Evaluating News and Information. Overview - Confirming Our Basis for Judgment. Issues. Stories in the News - Narratives Which Guide Our Interpretation. Midland County Review, Barcia Joins Conservatives in Fight Against Unfunded Mandates. Sabrina Cantu, It's O.K. to Make Fun of Jesus, If He's Black. How to Search for Information - Search Strategies for News and Information. Stacey Cole, Negativity in the Media. What Counts as News? - Problems with Definitions and Reception. News as Rhetorical. Forms of News. News as Commercial. James Amend, A Spicier, More Racey New Medium. News and Entertainment. Reading the News Comparatively - Earthquake in Japan, as Treated in Several News Media. Problems in News. Keeping Informed - Health Care Reform. Bill Moyers and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Great Health Care Debate. Propaganda. Objectivity and Fairness. Appendix: Transcripts of News Reports on Kobe Earthquake. CBS Evening News. CNN Report. All Things Considered. NPR Morning Edition. 5. Close Attention to Detail: Regarding the Commercial. Overview - Value in Analyzing Unvalued Texts. Issues. Why Ads? - Effective Rhetoric in the Face of Audience Resistance. Collecting Ads - Categories as Part of Making Meaning. How to Read a Commercial - Rhetorical Devices in Print Ads. Tara L. Prainito, Advertising's Enhancements. Analyzing a TV Commercial - Technical Events in Television Commercials. Transcript and Analysis of Midol Commercial. Aaron Kukla, Analysis of a Chevrolet Camaro Ad. Categorizing Commercials. Problems. Ads as Propaganda. Ads and Effects. Dirt - Ambiguities in Boundaries Between Texts. Leslie Savan, Don't Inhale: Tobacco Industry's Attitude-Delivery System. 6. Reading Pictures. Overview - Connections Between Visual and Verbal. Issues. Appeal of Seeing - Reliance on Sight. Pictures and Narratives. How to Read a Picture. Signs, Codes, and Conventions. Visual Images and Descriptive Writing. Problem: Gaze. 7. Entertainment as Information. Overview - What Entertainment Texts Tell Us. Issues. What's Entertainment? - Business or Cultural Context. Entertainment as Play - Reactions to Popular Culture. More Dirt - Transgressions in Entertainment Texts. Why Do They Want You To Play? - Entertainment and Hegemony. Arthur Asa Berger, Genre Migration. Audience's View - Dominant, Resisting, and Negotiating Positions. Problems. Taste. Popular Music. Roches, Mr. Sellack. Violence. Carl M. Cannon, Honey, I Warped the Kids. John Leonard, Why Blame TV? Todd Gitlin, Imagebusters: Hollow Crusade Against TV Violence. Children's Entertainment. David Foster, Sexist? Racist? Violent? Terrence Rafferty, No Pussycat. Science-Fiction. Race and Entertainment Media. Stereotypes. Todd Gitlin, From Inside Prime Time. III. RECONSIDERATIONS. 8. Discovering Contexts and Deeper Purposes. Overview - Critical Thinking About Writing. Issues. Representation and the Natural - Denaturing Natural. Labeling - Cues for Interpretation. Appellation and Ideology. Ideology: Definitions and Illustrations - Three Paradigms: False Consciousness, Any Set of Values and Assumptions, and Specifically Values and Assumptions. Reading Die Hard - Ideology as Reflected in a Popular Text Dominant Ideologies. Reading Texts for Ideology. Lisa Straney, Analysis: Nike Ad. Ideology and Metaphor. Problems. Example of PC - Who Gets to Complain About Political Correctness? Brian E. Albrecht, Team Names Still Stir Controversy. Candy Hamilton, Where a Tomahawk Chop Feels Like a Slur. John K. Wilson, Myth of Correctness. Nostalgia. Further Reading. Bob Garfield, Pizza Hut Has the Crust to Roll Out Incorrect Celebs. 9. Revision: Bringing Drafts to Completion. Overview. Issues. Why Revise? - Raising Your Game. Writing as Conversation. Strategies and Tactics for Revising. Computers and Revision. A Few Tactics for Revision - Leave It Alone Nutshelling Bombing: Impersonation. Shannon Peacock, From Dais-ed and Confused. Eric Nelson, From Words Mean Things and Integrity Matters. Sample Revision: Media in the Courts. Collections of Writing. Portfolios - Draft and Exhibition. Class Publications. 10. Developing Style and Audience Awareness. Overview - Style as Product of Interaction Between Persona, Subject, and Audience. Issues. Some Bad Advice About Style. Style as Ornament. Style as Clarity - E.B. White's Disappearing Author. Reducing Unnecessary Difficulty - Some Practical Advice. Style as Constitutive Or Would You Rather Be a Dog? - Audience as Appellated by the Text. Hegemony and Style. Daniel Zwerdling, Interview with Leslie Savan. Ira Teinowitz, From The Marketing 100: Rich Lalley, Red Dog. Style and Audience. Words, Words, Words. Beverly Gross, What a Bitch! Bad Rhetoric - Some Deceptive or Sloppy Devices. Rush Limbaugh and Rhetoric. Recognizing and Correcting Bad Rhetoric. William Lutz, Doublespeak. 11. Expanding Resources. Overview - Dynamic Media. Issues. Collections as a Basis for Your Own System - Adding Other Media. What to Expect - Electronic Media: Hopeful and Pessimistic Assessments. Electronic - Rhetorical Implications. Search Procedures. Hypertext - Implications of a New Form. Internet as Source of Information: A Test Case - Reactions to Oklahoma City Bombing on the Internet. Cyberporn - Circulation Through of Sloppy Research. Library Material - Searching for More. Some Reservations about the Internet. Herbert J. Gans, Electronic Shut Ins: Some Social Flaws of the Information Superhighway. M. Kadi, Q: How Tall is the Internet? A: Four Inches Tall.

Suggests that Jane Smiley’s “A Thousand Acres” is a faithful and a “profoundly subversive” revision of Shakespeare’s “King Lear.” Argues that the terms in which the novel have been most frequently praised, no less than the case made for banning it, raise important questions about the relationship between the novel’s secret and the source of Smiley’s Shakespearean “production.”

[This book] is a must for those committed to voicing the personal conflicts writers experience and to turning those confusing and sometimes dismaying moments into productive sites for questioning textual relations. - Journal of Advanced CompositionIn Getting Restless, Nancy Welch calls for a reconception of what we mean by revision, urging compositionists to rethink long-held beliefs about teacher-student relations and writing practices. Drawing primarily on feminist and psychoanalytic theories, she considers how revision can be redefined not as a process of increasing orientations toward a particular thesis or discourse community, but instead as a process of disorientation: an act of getting restless with received meanings, familiar relationships, and disciplinary or generic boundaries--a practice of intervening in the meanings and identifications of one's text and one's life. Using ethnographic, case-study, and autobiographical research methods, Welch maintains two consistent aims throughout the study: to show how composition teachers can create for themselves and for their students environments that encourage and support revision as restlessness and as a process of intervening in a first draft's thoroughly social meanings and identifications to demonstrate how composition's process legacy is revitalized when we understand that our means to form and change communities- to form and change constructions of authority--are located in revision. In achieving these ends Welch examines three academic sites: a campus writing center, undergraduate writing classrooms, and a summer workshop for K-12 teachers. This book will appeal to a wide audience, including classroom and writing center teachers, historians and theorists in composition and rhetoric, feminist theorists, and those engaged in literacy studies, teacher education, and connections/tensions among teaching, writing, and psychoanalysis.

The literature on formative text evaluation pays scant attention to the revision phase following data collection. This article describes a small-scale experiment in which five professional writers were asked to revise brochure fragments on the basis of feedback from readers. The feedback consisted of readers' comments, selected from the results of a pretest of the brochures, regarding their acceptance of the information and their appreciation of text elements. Despite the wide variety of solutions that resulted, some interesting tendencies were found: In response to problems with factual acceptance, writers often decided to add information; in response to problems with normative acceptance, they often chose to substitute material; and in response to appreciation problems, they either deleted the problematic passage or substituted a different phrase.

This study compares two methods of pretesting—the plus-minus method and the think-aloud method—with respect to their suitability for evaluating sites on the World Wide Web. These methods are often used for pretesting printed texts, but how appropriate are they for evaluating Web sites? The study compares the two methods with respect to the number of problems they detected, the nature of these problems, and the amount of feedback they yielded for revision. Participants using the plus-minus method detected a greater number of different types of problems than those using the think-aloud method, primarily because participants using the plus-minus method were more inclined to detect appreciation problems. Also, participants using the plus-minus method offered more suggestions about how to resolve the problems they had detected than those participants using the think-aloud method.