Straight, No Chaser

–Envision: Writing and Researching Arguments

–By Christine L. Alfano and Alyssa J. O’Brien. Pearson Education, 2008.

I feel unable to write this review without referencing (i.e. comparing it to) my first textbook review on Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. The editors of Ancient Rhetorics thoroughly emphasized invention rather than convention.

That being said, Envision: Writing and Researching Arguments implicitly emphasizes convention under the guise of invention. What I label as “conventional,” the editors of Envision describe as “time-honored writing techniques based on classical rhetoric” (xiii).

And surely, the “classical rhetoric” espoused in Envision does not refer to the same sophistic rhetoric and process pedagogy described in Ancient Rhetorics. Rather, the “classical rhetoric” in Envision seems to fall in line with the formulaic “modern rhetoric” disparaged in Ancient Rhetorics.

To be fair, the editors of Envision are quite comfortable with these “time-honored” conventions: “We walk students through interactive lessons on crafting thesis statements, structuring argumentative essays, developing research topics, evaluating sources, integrated quotations, revising papers, and, finally, designing and presenting effective presentations and writing projects (xiii). And don’t forget the token chapter on documentation and plagiarism.

Let me return to my initial statement: Envision emphasizes convention under the guise of invention. What I mean by “under the guise of invention” is that the book employs images, advertisements, cartoons, films, and other contemporary examples in an attempt to capture student interest while also building a “solid rhetorical foundation” in the core skills of analysis, argument, and research writing.

However, the pairing of contemporary media and “time-honored writing techniques” feels a little arbitrary and superficial at times. For example, editorial cartoon and comic strips are paired exclusively with a chapter on “analyzing texts” and developing thesis statements, while film and movie trailers are paired with a chapter on “organizing and writing research arguments.” The chosen media focus that parallels each chapter is perhaps a bit random. (But I would never deny my enjoyment of Calvin and Hobbes.)

[Note: this textbook, like Ancient Rhetorics, mentions Jon Stewart of The Daily Show. This must be a new requirement of composition textbooks.]

Now, whereas Ancient Rhetorics belittled the value of the personal narrative and expressive discourse, Envision has got you covered. A number of the “Writing Projects” and “Creative Practices” in this textbook ask students transform their reflections into a personal narrative essay.

Moreover, the editors of Envision are proponents of collaborative pedagogy, and each chapter contains a “Collaborative Challenge” that asks students to work together and often share their results with the class.

Interspersed throughout the textbook are invitations to check out “Student Writing” online. For example, during the chapter on pathos and “appeals to emotion,” the text invites you to check out Cyrus Chee’s rhetorical analysis of “two poster ads for contemporary films about the Holocaust.” Check it out at www.ablongman.com/envision/207.

Are you a thesis junkie? Well, Envision can calm those jitters and hook you up with a cheap fix. Whether it’s the six steps to developing a working thesis, or simply the abundant examples of clear and persuasive thesis statements, Envision can quench your thirst for significance in a single sentence.

So, Eric. Is this textbook practical?

Well, if you’re thinking about assigning five-paragraph essays, then Envision might be able to provide some colorful assistance. If you’re thinking about deconstructing advertisements, Envision could prove useful. There is potential here, but it’s all about how the instructor selectively reaps the benefits.

P.S. – Doesn’t “Envision,” the title itself, kinda sound like a pyramid scheme?