We argue for a course in which students analyze writing about a common topic—in this case World War I—from multiple genres (e.g., poetry and technical manuals). We address the divide between instruction in pragmatic and literary writing and calls to bridge that gap. Students working in disparate areas of English learn the strengths and the limitations of their fields, and how text represents and promotes different interpretations of reality. Such written representations do not neatly line up along a utilitarian-literary binary but are more closely interwoven in the presence of a profound subject such as war.

Abstract This article explores the writing of archaeologists to argue that the metaphor of context-as-rhetorical-situation may understate the power that context has to shape scientific discourse. The author offers instead the metaphor of context-as-active-agent in the rhetorical situation—one that sometimes reifies values that are dangerous to the archaeologists' belief systems. As scholars of technical writing, we must develop a greater understanding of the subtle but powerful influences that context wields on the writing we read and help to produce.