I was struck by a line on the very first page of this week’s reading: “Teachers often find it difficult to work their way through the resulting noise and therefore elect to hold to the approach that feels most comfortable-the one they experienced as students-regardless of whether it is effective or theoretically sound.” I can see how this could happen. Just in the first two chapters of Williams’ book alone, there are so many competing theories and styles of rhetoric to sift through, it can be very overwhelming. It would be easier to fall back on what you know or the ways in which you were taught. English classes were my favorite classes in high school and college mainly because of my teachers and they way they taught. Of course I would love to incorporate their methods into my classrooms in the future. But is that the best idea? What worked for me in a classroom may not work with the various types of students I will have. I think it’s important to have knowledge of all the theories and practices, both good and bad.

Out of all the contemporary rhetoric philosophies Williams discusses in this chapter, I remember being taught the “New Rhetoric and Process” theory the most. We always followed those steps he lined out: prewriting, planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Depending on the teacher, though, prewriting and planning were not always ‘official’ steps. I can see how this method can be effective. It allows students to have feedback on their writing and work from there. It gives students a structure to follow which can be helpful for some. It possibly can take a mediocre first draft of a paper and turn it into an ‘A’ paper. According to Williams, though, this method, like many others, has not been completely successful in improving students’ writing abilities. This theory could also bring up the debate of grammar versus content. This method places less emphasis on grammar and more on the crafting and content of the paper. Or it could be that it is a theory still based on rules, and those rules may not apply to every type of student and writer?

Williams later discusses Romanic Rhetoric, a theory that I’m not entirely too sure could be effective. Romantic rhetoric places heavy emphasis on expressive writing. They teach that there is no right or wrong, “only the expression of true feeling.” I definitely believe that expressive writing belongs in the classroom and can be helpful, but I don’t think it could be successful as the only method of writing. For one thing, this method ignores the fact that there are different styles of writing outside of expressive writing. I don’t think it’s good for students to graduate high school and college only knowing how to write about themselves and their experiences. In their careers and their personal lives, I am sure they will have to do different types of writing other than about themselves.

I could go on like this about the other theories Williams talks about. Each one has their benefits and their flaws. It seems to me that the best system of rhetoric might be a mixture of the best elements of all the different theories. I don’t know how practical this is, but it seems like it’s worth a try.