Honestly, “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories” was a very confusing reading for me because I believed it would explain the errors with the way composition is taught and how to better the system, and even though he did touch base on this, Berlin did so in a messy, confusing way. We know and understand how rhetoric and composition of writing and reading work together harmoniously, so it makes sense when Berlin states his concern with the composing process and then explains the rhetoric part of it, but my confusion began once he began to describe different writing and reading processes, definitions of truth, and different philosophical views. I understand his points all work to emphasize his main point: a New Rhetorician process should be implemented because it is most effective according to Berlin, but I feel all this other information just removes the readers’ attention from the main theme of his essay, which is the concern with the composition process.
To be fair, I might be biased at this moment since Berlin does criticize Aristotle and his philosophical views and module on rhetoric. For me, Aristotle’s implementations were and continue to serve well in teaching rhetoric and composition of reading and writing. It is important to be open-minded as readers and try to understand what the author of a written work might have intended, as well as it is important for writers to use this module and try to work together a piece that has purpose and convinces the audience of what has been written. To this day, many of my professors have instilled Aristotelian principles when teaching rhetoric and composition even though Berlin argues this method is hardly used or taken into account.
However for Berlin, a New Rhetoric process is much more effective in teaching proper rhetoric and composition because it implies writing does not have to be structured or organized to provide meaning and interpretation. Also, this method suggests written works are not open to interpretation since truth should already exist as language appears on these written pieces, hence the writer is the only one who creates truth for the written work.
I disagree with Berlin’s ideal module because I believe readers should have an opinion on something they’ve read. This allows for readers to understand their own written work and how they might more effectively prepare a paper that will be open to interpretation and still pass on their intended information to these students.
In another subject, I enjoyed reading “The Phenomenology of Error.” I think it depicts a student’s view of criticism from teachers and professors excellently. In my time as a student, essay errors are less criticized by English department professor and more criticized by other departments. Williams explains how students are criticized very harshly, and this is because teachers or professors grade these written works looking for errors since the beginning, and not necessarily on the product of the work because they don’t really trust students to be effective writers. Williams explains how these teachers or professors, however, use reading by valued writers, not noticing that these important and intellectual writers also have errors in their writing.
In my 3300 course, Professor Shoney Flores gave us an article which explained how all of us are initially taught to “critically analyze” pieces of writing by pointing out what we find wrong or right in a reading, but as readers’ we should be open minded and focus on the overall product of what we are reading and not mainly on grammatical errors.
Overall, I enjoyed the message this article stated, which is treat all works the same, whether written by a freshman in high school or by a valued writer such as H. W. Fowler.
