Articles
|
Annotation
|
Crowley,
Sharon.
"Histories of Pedagogy, English Studies, and Composition." CCC 49 (1998):
109-114.
|
In
this review, Crowley discusses three books published by the University of
Pittsburgh Press's Series
in Composition, Literacy, & Culture: John C. Brereton's
edited collection, The Origins of Composition Studies in the American
College, 1975-1925: A Documentary History (1995); Thomas P. Miller's The
Formation of College English: Rhetoric and Belles Lettres
in the British Cultural Provinces (1995); and Mariolina
Rizzi Salvatori's
edited collection, Pedagogy:
Disturbing History, 1819-1929 (1996).
She calls the first (which, in a way, historically sets up the split)
useful, even though it adds nothing new (111). Crowley deems the
second an "original work stuffed with data and scholarship about early
college-level instruction in the English language" (113) and explains
that Miller "uses his historical findings to speculate on the future
of English studies" (114). And she concludes that the third is
an "eye-opening reading" about the history of the term
"pedagogy" (113). All three would contribute to one's
understanding of the split; however, reading Crowley's review would give
one a quicker insight into the issues.
|
Gill,
David.
"Split up the English Curriculum for Better Writing Skills." Education Digest 65.8 (Apr. 2000):
61-63.
|
In
this "condensed" version from Schools in the Middle: Theory
into Practice 9 (Mar. 2000, 45-47), Gill advocates that high schools
emulate those university English departments that split literature and
composition classes (61). He feels such a split frees up literature
instructors "from the schizophrenic burden of planning for writing and
reading and grammar, [so] they can dig into the stuff they love--intense
literary analysis" (63).
This article is interesting in that it shows a recent application of the
debate, one that crosses college borders. In the article, Gill also
succinctly defines the essence of the debate: "composition
pedagogues are concerned with analysis of the act of writing and themes of
knowledge, culture, technology, and style that determine how writing is
evaluated. Literature courses, conversely, analyze the final product,
employing such literary theories as new criticism, reader response, and
feminist theory" (62).
|
Hariston, Maxine. "Some Speculations about the Future
of Writing Programs." WPA 11 (Spring
1988): 9-16.
|
According
to the CCCC Bibliography,
this article "considers the relationship between composition studies
and literary studies [and] argues that, while writing and literature
faculty may work together well in liberal arts colleges and urban
universities, separate graduate programs in writing and rhetoric may be
necessary at research universities."
|
Hariston, Maxine. "Breaking Our Bonds and Reaffirming Our
Connections." CCC
36 (October 1985): 272-282.
"Breaking our Bonds and Reaffirming Our Connections." BADE
81 (Fall 1985): 1-5.
|
According
to the CCCC Bibliography,
this CCCC address "advocates that rhetoricians and writing teachers
make a psychological break from literary critics"; the related article
"calls for rhetoricians and writing teachers to stand on their own as
professionals who no longer need the approval of those who teach
literature."
|
McClellend, Ben W., and Timothy R. Donovan. "Where are English
Departments Going?" Perspectives on Research and Scholarship
in Composition. Eds. Ben W. McClellend and
Timothy R. Donovan. New York: MLA, 1985.
1-5.
|
The
editors begin their text with a brief essay that contextualizes the split
by drawing on the work of William Riley Parker of the MLA in the
1960s. Parker, the editors explain, declared that English studies had
devolved by the start of the 1900s when English and speech split and the
medieval trivium became trivialized, and when New
Criticism advocates turned to using literature exclusively to prompt
writing (about literature) (2). The editors then move to a brief
history of the emergence of composition as a field and call for greater
unity with literary theory via "common points of interest" (4).
The collection of essays revolves around this idea to one extent or another
(see Clifford and Schilb,
below).
|
Schneider,
Alison.
"Bad Blood in the English Department: The Rift Between Composition and
Literature." The Chronicle of
Higher Education 13 (Feb. 1998): A14-16.
|
Leave
it to The Chronicle of Higher Education to very succinctly lay out
the issues related to the split (though with a slight bias towards the compositionists, like when she quotes Sledd observing that compositionists
are "not theorizing about the lastest
[sic] thing some French dandy said" [A15]). Typos aside, drawing
on interviews with Peter Elbow, James Sledd,
David Bartholomae, and Gerald Graff, among others, Schneider declares that
the issue in not new, but what is different is how "people--from elite
academics to angry adjuncts--are talking about the problem and, in fits and
starts, trying to remedy it," including the MLA (A14).
Schneider warns of the "intellectual impact" and "fiscal
realities" of the split: "institutionaliz[ed] divorce" and literature departments going
"the way of classics departments, turning into small operations, with
an even smaller student clientele" and thus less funding (A15).
Further realities she lays out include the exploitation of part-time and
graduate student teachers in composition and the problem compositionists face in
English departments that emphasize theory over pedagogy (A15).
|
Trimbur, John. "Literature and Composition: Separatism or
Convergence?" JTW 3
(Spring 1984): 109-115.
|
According
to the CCCC Bibliography, Trimbur "analyzes the reasons for viewing reading
as the 'convergence of literacy and literature under the rubric of
writing.'"
|
Books
|
Annotation
|
Berlin, James A. Rhetorics,
Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Urbana:
NCTE, 1996.
|
In
his introduction, Berlin asserts that "English studies is in
crisis" (xi) and to fix it, one must
understand the "intellectual and political issues at stake"
(xii). He proceeds to explain the issues "from the rhetoric side
of the department corridor" (xiii) and begins by explaining the
historical background. It is this section that I highly recommend
(pp. 3 - 37) as an accessible entry into understanding the split.
The other sections are useful, too; he explains theories such as
postmodernism and social-epistemic rhetoric and argues that whether a
teacher uses literature or not, he or she must explore "the conflicts
and contradictions" (91) and the "conditions of production,
distribution, exchange, and reception" (105).
Ultimately, he argues that the important goal of teachers should be
"developing a measure of facility in reading and writing practices so
as to prepare students for public discourse in a democratic political
community" (110). He concludes by providing examples of programs
that do this, programs that rely heavily on literature.
|
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce
Herzberg.
The
Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present.
2nd. ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001.
|
A
rich resource for understanding many rhetorical issues, Bizzell
and Herzberg's anthology includes reviews of the main periods of rhetoric,
providing important background information
for approaching an understanding of the split in general. For
example, they point out that the split did not exist in the classical
period, during which "the study of literature was thought to provide
resources for the orator, and writers often showed their rhetorical
training in their literary works" (38).
|
Web Sites (some links are no
longer available)
|
Annotation
|
http://www.uta.edu/
HyperNews/get/
berlin/12.html
http://www.uta.edu/
HyperNews/get/
berlin/17.html
|
For
his Fall 1998 seminar, James A. Berlin and Social-Epistemic Rhetoric
(at the University of Texas at Arlington), Victor J. Vitanza
set up a forum for class members and others to discuss Berlins
work. These two linked postings in particular by Byron Hawk
interestingly discuss the rhetoric/poetic split, drawing on Berlin; the
first in terms of the 1960s and 70s, and the second in terms of the 19th
century. To read the postings, scroll down past Vitanzas
introduction.
|
http://jac.gsu.edu/
jac/3/Reviews/5.htm
|
At
this web site, Jane R. Walpole, Piedmont Virginia Community College,
concisely reviews James J. Murphys
anthology The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing (NY: MLA, 1982). She
explains that the essays are strong in historical, philosophical overviews
and weak in practical, hands-on advice and points out the texts thesis: rhetoric and literature
need to be reunited, and it is literature that is offering its service to
rhetoric. She then discusses the essays, including ones by
James Murphy, Ed Hirsch Jr., Susan Miller, and James Kinneavy.
This text provides good background for why the split should be mended.
|
http://www.samla.org/
sar/sadoff64-3.html
|
At
this web site, Dianne F. Sadoff, Miami University
of Ohio, reviews The
Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline,
by Robert Scholes (New Haven: Yale UP, 1998) and The English
Department: A Personal and Institutional History, by W. Ross Winterowd (Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP,
1998). Sadoff explains that both texts link
the rise and fall of the English department with the fate of rhetoric.
She then gives details. Her review gives readers important insight
into two key texts.
|
|