Thank you for so thoughtfully and thoroughly responding to
my comment. I shouldn’t have posted so close to my bedtime last night because I
was unable to communicate how much I agree with Sirc’s argument–well, at least
part of it. I agree with him that we’ve shifted so far over to the canon of
invention that we’ve neglected style and that we should get better at teaching it
(beyond just correctness and clarity). I agree with him that histories of the
field that continue to paint literature teachers as the villains and rhet/comp
teachers as the victims aren’t helpful in moving us forward to more productive
conversations. And I agree with you that when it comes to the question of using
lit in comp, we’re overly and often needlessly twitchy about it. “Overly”
because, despite the experiences of many faculty in our field who got bruised
in turf wars with literature, times have changed for the better and we have
much more institutional clout and a greater body of scholarship behind us than
we did 20 years ago, so we don’t need to defend our status as a discipline so
tirelessly. “Needlessly” because, as you say, literary study is definitely not
just appreciation, and if there is forced reverence of texts going on, it is
certainly not confined to literary texts–“transactional” or nonfiction texts
can also be put on pedestals. And I believe that rhet/comp scholars of an older
generation aren’t that up to date on what goes on in literary studies and how
much overlap there is now between how literary scholars and rhetoric scholars
read texts.

But I disagree with you about the other argument I see Sirc
making, though he doesn’t make it explicitly. You don’t think he’s claiming
that literary texts will necessarily help students, but I do and here’s why.
One of his main gripes about composition is that we don’t savor prose as much
as we savor ideas, that as far as style goes we only teach clarity and
correctness, and that the texts we give students to work with are “thinly voiced
unimaginative prose” (512, 518).  In
contrast, he says that the poetic is useful because it opens up “the enormously
rich possibilities of language,” and about James specifically, he says that his
writing is “the most interesting reading there is” and that he and Bob Dylan
are “shining examples of the extraordinary in verbal creation” (510). So when
he says “Show them Henry James,” I think he’s offering that as an antidote for
the bland writing we accept (and may even encourage) from students. The fact
that he doesn’t make the connection from reading good literature to writing
better very clear is symptomatic of the fact that it’s not clear how that would
work. I don’t know if this is true for Sirc, but I suspect that many teachers
think that students learn good writing from literary texts by osmosis.

He does say that good writing is sometimes just inspired or
accidental, and therefore there are limits to how teachable it is. But I need
to, and want to, get better at teaching style. That’s where I was coming from
in reading his essay, but he’s not helping me out. I actually really enjoy his
own writing style, but wouldn’t want to teach all my students to write like him,
just like there are plenty of folks who wouldn’t like students to write more
like Henry James, who can be very dense and difficult.

As for the Isaacs argument, I have very mixed feelings about
it because of my mixed loyalties. When I think about the Montclair State
program as a graduate student with friends and colleagues very much like the
adjuncts Isaacs is talking about, I know that having a literature background
doesn’t necessarily predict anything about how a person will teach writing,
except for the fact that lots of adjuncts coming out of those programs have
training and experience teaching writing, as Isaacs observes. And I understand
the workload from the teachers’ perspective, and that it would be nice to be
able to teach texts that you know well instead of needing to learn new ones,
which takes time away from the hours needed to grade papers. And from the
perspective of the WPA, I admire the pragmatic approach of making the best with
the pool of teachers at hand–she’s right that the most experienced teachers of
writing are often people who have degrees in literature, though that doesn’t
mean that lit scholars are the only ones who would make good writing teachers.
Teaching writing is a skill that someone from any disciplinary background could
have, and I think it would be odd to require some from history teach with
literary texts…though if they were really flexible as a teacher, they would
probably do a good job.

But from the perspective of the students, I think it’s also
odd that all of them have to write about literature in their second semester,
especially if there’s another required literature class that they have to take
as well. Like Sirc, I think that teachers in the other disciplines should take
responsibility for teaching students writing so that they don’t think that
writing is something only English teachers care about.

I feel like I’m making the same wishy-washy moves as Peter
Elbow does in “The Cultures of Literature and Composition: What Could Each
Learn from the Other?” (which you should definitely check out if you haven’t
yet)…I think there could be a useful place for literature in composition, but I
also think that teachers from other disciplines need to get in the game and teach
students about the possibilities of language in chemistry, nursing, criminal
justice, and so on. So, I agree with Sirc and on those points, I just don’t see
how Sirc helps us productively incorporate literature in the short term or
convince our colleagues in other disciplines that they should also be teaching
writing in the long term.

But let’s tackle some of your questions and comments:

1) How do we know that showing students Henry James will result in a “transfer of masterful style”?

Does Sirc claim that reading James will result in students that can write like James? I don’t see that anywhere in his piece, but please correct me if I’m wrong. But more importantly, are you claiming that reading any type of prose or poetry can result in a “transfer of style”? Does reading a book by Malcom Gladwell or Lawrence Lessig or Thomas Jefferson operate any differently in the classroom? How would you prove that? I’d agree that there’s no clear way to show how reading fiction results in a “transfer of style.” However, I’d make that same claim about any text. As I see it, the goal is not to give students texts to emulate or imitate (unless we are talking about an imitation exercise, which would be about attuning oneself to the language) but rather to give them texts that give them the opportunity to pay attention to how language works.

2) “I’m really of the opinion that the texts don’t matter as much as the pedagogy and what you ask students to do with the texts. Sirc might do a fine job of using James’s writing to teach students how be more conscious writers, but not every writing teacher would be able to pull that off. (Re)introducing literary texts won’t necessarily help students develop a better toolkit of styles on its own.”

I agree. But again, I don’t read Sirc arguing that literary texts will *necessarily* help students. I read an argument that claims that the literary has been sliced out for the wrong reasons (political, disciplinary) and that we have (as a field) stopped trying to figure out how to incorporate the literary into composition classrooms. Are there challenges? Certainly. But there are challenges with any set of texts. The field of Composition and Rhetoric has, for a number of reasons, decided to avoid these challenges altogether.

3) Regarding Isaacs: “Giving comp teachers the chance to teach texts they are experts in reading and writing about doesn’t seem like the best reason to make those texts part of a writing course even though it might be the most expedient one.”

Here, I think we might just disagree. While I don’t think composition classes should be devoted entirely to the literary (neither does Isaacs), it makes sense to me to use literature in the classroom toward particular ends. Why not read litearture alongside non-fiction? Why not allow people teaching composition to draw upon their disciplinary expertise?

I think the field is worried that literature in the composition classroom will be an infringement upon disciplinary territory and that it will result in a class on “appreciation.” The first concern is frustrating because it puts turf wars ahead of the interests of students. The second concern reduces ALL literary scholarship to appreciation, something that is borderline offensive and that demonstrates an ignorance of what actually happens in literary studies.

For me, the style of the piece holds back the project of reintroducing the literary into composition. That’s a project I’m interested in, and that’s why I’m arguing for a different style of engagement (and here we might bring in Muckelbauer), one that is (as you note) not Hegelian.

I’m with you in appreciating the conciliatory tone and pragmatic attitude in the Isaacs article, especially her very valid point that better graduate training in composition pedagogy over the last 20 years has made literature scholars better writing teachers.  But I’m not convinced that just because most folks who teach FYC are from a literature background means that writing curricula should be adjusted to meet their expertise. Giving comp teachers the chance to teach texts they are experts in reading and writing about doesn’t seem like the best reason to make those texts part of a writing course even though it might be the most expedient one.

For me, the style of the piece holds back the project of reintroducing the literary into composition. That’s a project I’m interested in, and that’s why I’m arguing for a different style of engagement (and here we might bring in Muckelbauer), one that is (as you note) not Hegelian.

So, being provocative here: perhaps that’s where Sirc is coming from, and it’s not, then, a see-saw? (But nor is it Hegelian, a la Berlin).