Rhetoric can be analyzed and broken down in various ways, and at times, in ways that the writer did not intend. When a reader begins to analyze a text, they intend to break it down into a matter they will understand. Yet, in several instances the reader does not understand how rhetoric’s role comes into play and how the writer intended to use these rhetorical concepts. In the texts, Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow by David Bartholomae, and, Being a Writer vs. Being and Academic: A Conflict in Goals by Peter Elbow, rhetorical concepts such as ethos for example, are analyzed by the intended audience to help gain a better understanding of their main goals and the reasons for their stance in the discussion. With this being said, Elbow takes his work to a personal level and emphasizes a better use of ethos than that of the work of Bartholomae, and both use other forms of ethos such as arête, phronesis and eunoia, to better their argument.
After analyzing both Bartholomae’s and Elbow’s work I noticed that Elbow seems to use ethos in a way that Bartholomae’s text lacks. According to the text, “What …show more content…
Bartholomae argues that “writing is the real work of the academy,” which means exactly what it states. His method of teaching focuses on work of scholars that are well know from their process of writing. He believes that there is no real writing without teachers, because the student isn’t the first to acquire academic grade information on how to write. The credit then falls to the teacher instead of the actual writer because it is seen as the work of the teacher. Since you did not teach yourself what you have written, then the work did not originate from the writer, instead from the mindset the scholar taught the writer. This can then lead the focus away from the new writers, one who can teach us something we didn’t know before, but this method of teaching prevents just
After analyzing both Bartholomae’s and Elbow’s work I noticed that Elbow seems to use ethos in a way that Bartholomae’s text lacks. According to the text, “What …show more content…
Bartholomae argues that “writing is the real work of the academy,” which means exactly what it states. His method of teaching focuses on work of scholars that are well know from their process of writing. He believes that there is no real writing without teachers, because the student isn’t the first to acquire academic grade information on how to write. The credit then falls to the teacher instead of the actual writer because it is seen as the work of the teacher. Since you did not teach yourself what you have written, then the work did not originate from the writer, instead from the mindset the scholar taught the writer. This can then lead the focus away from the new writers, one who can teach us something we didn’t know before, but this method of teaching prevents just