Chapter+4

=  “Two Forms of Criticism: Explication and Analysis”   =

Chapter 4 entitled “Two Forms of Criticism: Explication and Analysis” spends its time thoroughly explaining methods and approaches students should use when writing these types of pieces. The chapter begins with a description of an explication and uses examples of appropriate notes and final drafts of explications to illustrate their suggestions. The chapter ends its discussion on explication with a explication checklist for students. Then, the chapter moves on to a discussion of literary analysis beginning with the differences between an explication and an actual analysis, which the chapter presents as a more general analysis of a longer work or topic than an explication. The chapter provides a short story and than discusses points of interest in the story that would be appropriate for analysis. The chapter specifically suggests using comparison as an analytic tool and goes on to discuss organization methods, other rules and even a checklist for making a comparison (Barnet and Cain 59-60). This chapter ends with a review of “how to write an effective essay” by describing four steps of the writing process including pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing (Barnet and Cain 63-67).

Much of Chapter 4 seems to embrace a current-traditional pedagogy; however, there are many instances where the text includes rhetorical, process, and social-constructivist pedagogies as well. Part of the seemingly high influence of current-traditionalism stems from the rule-like presentation for writing explications and analyses. This presentation for rules though could be more a result of social-constructivism than current-traditionalism. This is because the text gives heuristics and demystifies the conventions of a specific writing situation: a situation of literary analysis. David Bartholomae, a social constructivist argues when instructing composition, teachers should “ determine just what the [academic] community’s conventions are, so that those conventions could be written out, ‘demystified’ and taught in our classrooms” (Bartholomae 615) This demystification of conventions of a certain writing situation makes it hard to identify whether this text is simply providing current-traditional rules for the writer by providing help in the form of checklists or if the text is trying to give the conventions of a specific writing community of literary analysts.

One still cannot be sure if social constructivism truly influences the text because a discussion and awareness of these rules only applying to a specific audience is only implicit unlike what Joseph Harris encourages “[...] to offer [students] a chance to reflect critically” on the discourse communities and contexts for which they write (Harris 754). Also, a suggestion the text gives that questions a social-constructivist influence is when it demands the student to “[w]rite sincerely” (Barnet and Cain 63). Lester Faigley, a social constructivist attacks the demand for sincerity, arguing that given the social influences and contexts of all writing and reader responses, sincerity is impossible to judge (Faigley 654).

While most of the chapter seems to emphasize a universal reader and situation, at least a universal literary analysis situation, it sometimes includes a rhetorical pedagogy influence. For example, when discussing organization the chapter suggests, that “the important point is not that there is only one way to organize an essay, but that you find the way that seems best for the particular topic and argument” and that the writer should “[...] find what seems the best way of communicating it to a reader” (Barnet and Cain 62).

The final part of the chapter outlines the steps of the writing process. This outline certainly brings process pedagogy to mind but could also be another form of current-traditionalism in the text. Since the text lists stages of the writing process, it suggests these steps are exclusive and linear from each other rather than the process being “recursive” as Nancy Sommers suggests (Sommers 323). Beyond the presentation of the writing process as listed and linear, within the description of each step, there is some description that suggests the writer should not think of his or her process as linear. For example, the text speaks of the process as discovery: “the process of writing will itself clarify and improve [the students] preliminary ideas” (Barnet and Cain 64). Still though, the text has some implications that revision is a separate step from drafting by suggesting a student allows a day to pass before starting any revision, which makes it sound as though no revision occurs during the drafting stage. However, the text redeems itself, at least from a process perspective, by emphasizing global revisions such as reorganization over mere editing revisions (Barnet and Cain 66).

 **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.