Applying “What is Rhetoric?” to Elbow’s and Bartholomae's Arguments The role of academic writing in a student's life is largely contested among rhetoric and writing professors and academics. Covino and Joliffe's article "What is Rhetoric?" and Elbow and Bartholomae's academic discussion both seek to define both what role academic is and what role writing should play in undergraduate studies. While "What is Rhetoric?" focuses more on finding one definitive definition of rhetoric, Elbow and Bartholomae focus more on how they believe rhetoric and academic writing should be applied in the classroom. The discussions on both articles are incredibly important because they attempt to make academic writing accessible to students such as myself…show more content… Elbow's more freeform version of academic writing supports a more big- picture approach, encouraging the student to use the paper not as a chance to perfect their writing, but as a chance to participate in the academic conversations.
The article “What is Rhetoric?” by Covino and Jolliffe defines terms in rhetoric that can be applied to both Elbow and Bartholomae’s arguments. It traces rhetoric back to Aristotle and leads us to the unsure and unstable place rhetoric is today. We can gain a clearer understanding of Elbow and Bartholomae’s arguments by applying the terms defined in Covino’s and Jolliffe’s article.
Looking into the terms defined in “What is Rhetoric?” and how they apply to Bartholomae’s argument, we can gain more insight into Bartholomae’s points. Bartholomae seems to be focusing on the logos of an argument through his teaching of academic writing. Logos, as defined by “What is Rhetoric?,” is the “logic” or “reason” behind an argument. Bartholomae appears to follow the “Classical Rhetoric” period mentioned in “What is Rhetoric?,” as he focuses on perfecting the basic, impersonal way of writing. He does not want a personal bias to show in a paper and wants the student’s “style,” or “the selection and deployment of words and sentences that compromise discourse.” Bartholomae’s point of view seems to agree more with the scholars George Campbell and Hugh Blair, as they believe that text should have the