Critique+of+This+Book

= A Critique of //A Short Guide to Writing About Literature// =

Throughout this text, the presence of several theories of composition seemed to be present. The authors made use of current-traditionalism, process, rhetorical, collaborative and even social constructivist pedagogies. Drawing influence from a broad range of pedagogies is a positive thing. As Lad Tobin states, “[...] the differences in theory are less clear and less significant in the classroom, where most practitioners borrow liberally from research of various kinds [...]” (A Guide to Composition Pedagogies 10). Therefore, once writing becomes directly instructional, like it does in this text, several theories unavoidably come into play. This method is effective because each theory makes up a vital component of writing in general. To have process, writing for personal discovery without rhetorical, writing for the benefit of the audience, is quite problematic. Also, trying to ignore the specific expectations of the societal setting, discourse community or collaborative nature of composing would be detrimental to a students’ understanding of writing.

This book includes an interesting emphasis on the rhetorical pedagogy. The text constantly reminds the writer to be aware of the audience and the expectations of the reader. One way the book addresses the writer’s awareness of their audience is to possess critical thinking skills while reading. This ability to read critically and comprehensibly in order to write in this way is important because as Peter Elbow explains, “it forces the student to realize that he does in fact have standards and criteria for judging writing” (117). So, if a student can read in a way that assesses what is effective in the writing, then he or she will better be prepared to write with an awareness of the audience or reader. The text emphasizes this aspect of rhetorical pedagogy in an effective way.

This text certainly draws some strong influences from process and expressive pedagogy. The introduction of the writing process in Chapter 3 and the in-depth discussion of each part is helpful. The text gives several methods of prewriting and also much guidance in ways to approach revision. Global revision techniques are emphasized. The discussion of the writing process gives students tangible ways to think about their own personal process. It is beneficial for students to be aware of the writing process because it allows them to have a clear way of approaching what they want to communicate in writing. However, in the text’s discussion of process, sometimes the process came across as linear rather than recursive. There does not seem to be much emphasis on the necessity of going back and forth between each step of the process. Instead, the text isolates these steps which could potentially lead to a misunderstanding of the writing process. For example, the text suggests that once a draft is written, a writer should put it aside for at least a day before making any revisions. Even though this method can be helpful, the text fails to emphasize the importance of revising simultaneously while drafting. Once a writer leaves the drafting stage, they can always go back to that stage or to the prewriting stage. This is a truly recursive process. Explicitly teaching the writing process as recursive is essential in a student’s understanding of it, something the text struggles with addressing.

Cognitive theorists such as Flowers and Hayes emphasize that good thinking leads to good writing. This book, however, begins with the writing process and then in later chapters addresses these thinking skills. This organizational method probably stems from an expressive approach which emphasizes writing leading to thinking and discovering ideas. This is an effective way of organization, but an inclusion of the reasons for organizing the text in this way would be helpful. Many readers of this book might expect a discussion on comprehending and analyzing literature before a discussion on writing about it. The text never explicitly explains why it is organized the way it is, and to make it more effective, this explanation should be included.

With the inclusion of "checklists," "rules for writers," and straightforward demands of the way to write right, this text does include a seemingly current-traditionalist approach. However, despite the negative associations current-traditionalism has, the text has a specified audience, so this apparent current-traditionalism should be examined farther. First, even though the several rules for writers seem to be current-traditionalist, much of what they actually say stem from other theories such as process and rhetorical. The way these suggestions are presented, as rules, just make them come across as authoritative and current-traditionalist. The inclusion of checklists and demanding ways of writing correctly is a little more complex considering that this book seems to be influenced heavily by process and rhetorical pedagogies.

The saving grace for this text in escaping being current-traditionalist is that there is a specific audience for which it is written: the reader of literary analysis and criticism. The type of writing described in this text is specific to writing about literature, thus there is probably a specific audience or discourse community's expectations in mind when the authors made these checklists etc. If the checklists, rules and demands stem form the author's awareness of the expectations of a particular discourse community and attempts to demystify such expectations and conventions, then the author's are actually probably working from a social constructivist viewpoint. Social Constructivists like David Bartholomae acknowledge the specific conventions of certain discourse communities and simply encourage the demystification of them. This could be exactly what Barnet and Cain are attempting to do in the text. The biggest problem then, seems to be, that the book avoids openly discussing the fact that this specific discourse community does have authority over expectations and the hierarchical and societal implications of that. Social theorists like Joseph Harris stress that these discourse communities need to be openly discussed, and this text avoids doing that. Therefore, the book comes across as having probably too much current-traditionalism while it could probably eradicate that problem with a simple discussion of situational, societal and communal expectations.

Overall, this book could be helpful in teaching students how to write literary criticism and analysis. It includes a wide-range of composition pedagogies that help include several aspects of writing. The texts inclusion of the writing process, the emphasis on the rhetorical situation and even the demystification of the conventions when writing about literature all serve as effective guides for writers. However, the book does exclude some important direct discussions of aspects of writing like a recursive process and the hierarchical nature of specific discourse community. Fortunately, as an instructor of composition using this textbook, you can be the missing link to make the writing instruction more complete. Where the text is vague on why this specific writing situation requires certain “rules” or “checklists”, the instructor can play a role on making these contexts more clear. Also, where the text might miss an emphasis on an important aspect of writing, like the recursive nature of the writing process, the instructor can emphasize this. Therefore, this text would be most effective in collaboration with an instructor dedicated to making the contexts and practices of writing explicit and clear to their students.


 * Note:** This wikispace can be used as a guide to decide whether or not the text //A Short Guide to Writing About Literature// will be effective for your classroom probably at the college level. Throughout the review of this book, several composition theorists and their writings are referenced. Familiarity with these articles and theories will be helpful in accessing this guide and deciding whether or not to use this book as a source. For your convenience, on the Annotated Bibliography page of this wiki an annotated bibliography including extensive summaries of each work references can be found.