"Understanding Composing" by Sondra Perl

The main purpose of this essay was to research the composing process and analyze its patterns and recursive nature.  An obvious pattern is that writers often return briefly to what he or she has already written.  Many writers also utilize keywords repeatedly that are pertinent to the topic being discussed.  The third and last tendency is subtler and is often referred to as “felt sense”.  It is considered a feeling that writers strive for, a brief sense during the process of putting words down that really emit what the author is trying to convey.  It can sometimes be defined textually as a single word of phrase that truly embodies what the author wants to stay.  Thus, in the creative process, a skilled writer can hone in on the ability to access this “feeling” of saying something he or she has never said before.  The two basic structural tendencies authors use are retrospective and projective.  Retrospective relies on recursive behavior by using what has already been written down, while projective relies on what audiences would approve of reading.  Usually both of these occur in the composing process and prove that it is definitely not a strict linear scheme.

Perl’s article directly analyzing the actual process of composition is extremely insightful.  Felt sense is incredibly common yet not actively recognized enough by many readers, I feel.  The “skill” to tap into it more often during writing is perhaps the most valuable tool for any creative endeavor.  Personally, I have realized this before and am constantly searching for methods to allow myself easier access to it through external senses, even though it is ultimately an organic feeling that cannot be guaranteed.  Being aware of this element of composition is essential.

"Keywords in Composition Studies" by Vandenberg, Owens, Heilker...

Vandenberg offers small chapters focused on a batch of important keywords that arise frequently as a scholar of composition.  The first, audience, is essentially displayed as a concept of many differing perceptions.  These range from deciphering audience as a part of the writing process to something that should be pre-constructed before anything is ever put on paper.  But if one were to conclusively decide that the idea of audience is one simple thing, than empty, lost text would be the result.  The next term, coherence, is discussed as a fundamental construction of text, but not pertaining to cohesiveness.  Coherence is a collaborative act between the author and reader brought on about by complementary actions such as how the text is presented and how it is received.  With new technologies, the audience is now redefining what coherence means for authors as readers have gained more control by being able to selectively perceive discourse.  Collaboration is brought about in mainly two opposing views.  One sees the act of writing as a very individualistic act while the other considers it as a social act.  Form/structure is basically the principles of design applied to writing, which would refer to the surface of text.  It is the arrangement or organization and fills the need a reader has for matter to be filled in.  Freshman English is a keyword mainly used to refer to first-year writing, but carries some connotations that can be construed as negative.  It is often thought of as just a basic training course that only exists for American sentimentality.  Process came to be a keyword because of the concentration on holistic method that writing took, shifting away from the product-oriented mindset.  Expressivism promoted self-discovery and importance of experience for writers, while the cognitive method approached creative efforts in steps in a more "scientific" discovery.  Revision is not simply a correction of errors but is also a remolding due to audience expectations.


This collection of terms by Vandenberg is a very concise introduction to theoretical composition and provides general insight.  It will be interesting how many of these characteristics will evolve with the changing climate of writing today.  With style and coherence, it will be more apparent, but even process and collaboration will drastically be reinvented.

"What is Rhetoric?" by Covino and Joliffe

When it comes to the study of rhetoric, a scholar almost assumes that there is a concrete definition of the term.  However, this label of discourse holds so much weight, not because of generality, but because of its depth.  It can be seen as something that shapes content or a method for writers and speakers to seek power over audiences.  The major elements include rhetorical situation, audience, proofs and the five canons (invention, arrangement, memory, style, and delivery).  Writers never acknowledge an exclusive audience; rather they construct one and try to actively address them.  A rhetor may use three sorts of textual appeals to persuade audiences, which Aristotle called ethos, pathos, and logos.

The essay aims to define the grand term of “rhetoric” and it does so by dissecting it into elements so one can understand it by parts.  I feel as though this particular article is a bit redundant because it is just a collection of theoretical definitions pertaining to the study of rhetoric.  Thus, it just provides a broad overview of everything, and not much insightful argument or theme.  Nonetheless, it is a useful gathering of information to the introduction of rhetorical thinking.

"Writing in the 21st Century" by Kathleen Blake Yancey

In today’s progressing medium of writing, there are three challenges we must face: developing new models of writing, designing new curriculums to support those models, and creating models to teach that curriculum.  In terms of historical perception in the 20^th century, writing never received the cultural respect reading did because reading controlled citizens, while writing could give them power.  It was also considered ambivalent because it was associated with unpleasantness.  Also, it required a lot of labor in and out of school.  It was primarily used for testing purposes in academic settings.  Science and progressivism furthered writing instruction to be accepted as something liberating that could express thoughts about specific interests.  From the 60s to 80s, the new conception of process writing emerged and the personal computer transformed the creation of texts even more.  In the 21^st century, it seems as if writers are everywhere since web 2.0 allows for “publishing” to occur anywhere on the Internet.  Also, writing online has expands its purpose from just sharing and starting dialogue to becoming an act of participation.  Now, composition does not need to be taught through formal instruction, but rather through social co-apprenticeship.  As long as you take action to compose something, it will be read.  It shows the power of networking and that the traditional pyramid with print media at the top followed by online and social has changed.  Now there are multiple models to compose, each with new practices, materials, and vocabulary.

Being part of the generation Y that was raised in the Age of Information, this essay truly summarizes the quick evolution of composition in the 21^st century.  When you can personally witness and experience virtually everyone around you become “authors” of some sort, it forces one to realize that writing composition is not a strict formula, rather it is dependent on societal tendencies, which in turn, are directly influenced by technologies.  Thus, those challenges presented by Yancey are very real and we must adapt to them in order progress.  This is not to say that we should abandon entirely the traditional philosophy of composition, but we must emphasize that it is an era of dramatic change and rhetorical composition is being redefined.  At the rate of things being published, albeit a 300-word blog post or an instant 140-character tweet, the idea of authorship as an exclusively limited concept is being erased.  Everything is now shared.

"The Rhetorical Stance" by Wayne C. Booth

Booth suggests that the perfect balance to approach writing is to find a place between completely dismissing any consideration for the audience and regarding them to the point that it becomes overbearing.  This is what he refers to as rhetorical stance.  He continues to state that discovering and maintaining this stance depends on the balance of three main elements: available arguments about the subject, the interests of the audience, and the voice of the speaker.  There are a few unbalanced stances writers tend to take, especially when dealing with persuasion.  The pedant’s stance, which relies solely on statements about the subject, totally disregards the audience.  But this kind of writing merely produces exposition with no purpose, making the purpose of the discourse meaningless and empty.  The opposite stance would be a piece of writing strictly created for the purpose of appealing or accommodating the audience.  It may be successful, but does not truly reach any reader because there is actually a lack of rhetoric.  A balanced writer would be evident if his or her piece were able to change the audience’s mind, thus proving a halfway point can exist because it doesn’t push away readers immediately, but challenges them enough to reconsider their own stance.

Rhetorical stance is perhaps the greatest struggle for the writer.  Before one even puts down a single word to establish the start of a piece, he or she is already considering the internal tug of war of remaining accessible to readers, yet retaining one’s integrity by not over-compromising.  When a writer completely ignores audience, the tone of a work can easily turn to pretentious drivel, which results in vapidity.  If one caters to the audience exclusively, he or she risks losing any persuasive theme intended to be communicated in the first place.  Therefore, it is just a level of writing comfort that can only be achieved when practiced or otherwise honed in on during the course of a curriculum.

The Meaning of "Audience" by Douglas B. Park

The term “audience” manifests itself to writers in a multitude of facets.  It is complicated to define because it is more than just the reader or readers to whom you are writing for.  One has to determine whether they are simply accommodating to an audience or trying to evoke them into an active state.  If one were to reference Bitzer’s “Rhetorical Situation” article, then the definition of audience would be the external presence outside of the discourse that contained its own beliefs and attitudes, setting it within a context that calls for a response.  On the other end of the theoretical spectrum, Walter Ong’s view of rhetoric would say that the audience only exists in the text because the reader can be at varying levels of participation, which would mean that audiences can be extremely evoked, or not at all.  The problem with writers considering the “audience” is that the concept has been oversimplified as the concrete image of external readers.  Thus, discourse is produced as if it were in a factory, catering to an exclusive audience strictly because it will be successful or more likely to be published.

Park’s critique of how writers easily fall into the trap of underestimating the complexities of audience is very evident in writing, or any media, today.  It’s almost as if cookie-cutter produced texts, music, and movies are surrounding us.  When works are created through a formula and rewarded with repeated success, it’s not hard to understand why it has become a perpetual cycle.  I agree with Park that it might be bred in schools, but it is the responsibility of all levels of discourse to change that by writer writing thought-provoking material because it is what audiences need, not want. If we continue to think of audiences as a presence we have to constantly cater to, new texts will “baby” them to the point where it forces a deterioration of any published work thereafter.

"The Rhetorical Situation" by Lloyd F. Bitzer

When dealing with rhetoric, many people mainly concern themselves with rhetorical subject or audience, without much consideration for situation.  But if one were to say rhetoric is situational, it would mean that: rhetoric is a response, situations give it significance, situation is a necessary condition, the situations do not always spur utterance, the situation can be altered by rhetoric, discourse functions to the needs of the situation, and the situation controls the response.  Rhetorical situation is mainly defined as a complex of any circumstances that can present exigency, which allows for discourse that may change human decision, to be altered.  Exigence, audience, and constraints are the three constituents relevant to rhetorical situation.  Our natural environment is constantly changing so rhetorical discourse is necessary as a practical means for us to investigate and shape our reality.

The article is very relevant in analyzing the concept of rhetoric.  I can see how rhetorical situation should be a component that draws more concern, but since we emphasize subject and audience, we let it naturally resolve itself.  When I think of the mere idea, time, place, and circumstance are the first things that come to mind.  I find it interesting that Bitzer’s article is almost forcing readers to backpedal through the process of rhetoric in order to understand it.  Logically, one would usually consider the audience, plan the subject matter, and then deliver it in the situation.  Bitzer is saying how situations arise as conditions for us to respond to, which makes sense in a grand view of things.