you get more | bedfordstmartins.comBedford/St. Martin’s

DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Cover 2 — ad size: 5 x 7.625] DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Facing Cover 2 — ad size: 5 x 7.625]

Handbooks that work

With a Bedford / St. Martin’s handbook, students can quickly find reliable writing and

research information on their own. All Bedford handbooks are now available as e-books

at a significant savings. Most are available with LearningCurve, adaptive online quizzing

that focuses students on the topics they need to practice — free when packaged with

the book. Visit bedfordstmartins.com/handbooks.

TABBED VERSION AlSOAVAIlABlE

EXERCISEVERSION AlSOAVAIlABlE

ONlINEhANDBOOk

writershelp.com

NEw APA VERSION AVAIlABlE!

NEw mulTImODAl VERSION AVAIlABlE!

NEw

bCovs234-Jan2013-CE.indd 2 11/12/12 4:03 PM

you get more | bedfordstmartins.comBedford/St. Martin’s

DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Facing Cover 3 — ad size: 5 x 7.625] DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Cover 3 — ad size: 5 x 7.625]

New for the basic writing course

The paragraph-to-essay book with a real world approach

The sentence-to-paragraph book with a real world approach

Research-driven instruction. Successful students.

bedfordstmartins.com/realwriting/catalog

bedfordstmartins.com/realskills/catalog

bedfordstmartins.com/touchstones/catalog

AlSO

AVAIlABlE

wIThOuT

READINgS

Integrated support for reading and writing

bedfordstmartins.com/reflections/catalog

bCovs234-Jan2013-CE.indd 3 11/12/12 4:03 PM

you get more | bedfordstmartins.comBedford/St. Martin’s

DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Cover 4 — ad size: 5 x 7.625]

1ST EDITION

Add Ahandbook

&SaVEEVEn MoRE!

Value packages — Package and save

When you package two or more core English books — handbooks, readers, rhetorics, or developmental English texts — you can save your students 20% off both books.

When we ask instructors if they want choice, they all say yes — in content, in delivery, and in price. So we strive to keep all our prices low, with a value option for every kind of book. We also provide 24/7 support, free resources, and a range of flexible formats that lets you choose the scope of your course materials. To learn more, visit bedfordstmartins.com/value.

• Bedford e-Books. Online and interactive.• Bedford e-Books to Go. Portable and downloadable.• e-Books from our Publishing Partners. Learn how our e-book versions stack up.• Bedford Classes. Online course spaces with your choice of e-book.• Loose-leaf versions with three-hole punch offer the same high quality as a

bound book, but let students carry only what they need. Available for select titles.

Bedford valueWe know you need choices

Value formats — Get real choices

Our e-book, Bedford Class, and loose-leaf options offer all the content of the print text at roughly half the cost! Here are just a few of the alternate formats we offer for our titles:

bCovs234-Jan2013-CE.indd 4 11/12/12 4:03 PM

you get more | bedfordstmartins.comBedford/St. Martin’s

DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Cover 2 — ad size: 5 x 7.625] DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Facing Cover 2 — ad size: 5 x 7.625]

“ Eli is the first thing I’ve come across that feels like it fits absolutely perfectly into the composition classroom. Talk about a killer app.”

— Mike Edwards, United States Military Academy, West Point

Bedford e-Portfolio bedfordstmartins.com/eportfolio

Select. Collect. Reflect. The Bedford e-Portfolio makes it easy for students to showcase

their coursework and share the story of their unique learning experience, whether for

their class, for their job, or even for

their friends. With straightforward,

flexible assessment tools, the

Bedford e-Portfolio lets instructors

map rubrics and learning outcomes

to student work or simply invite

students to start their collections.

Simply flexible

Eli Peer Review William Hart-Davidson, Jeffrey T. Grabill, Michael McLeod

bedfordstmartins.com/eli

Eli helps teachers create a clear set of tasks for student review and revision — and

gives a real-time window into what’s happening in drafts and feedback. Eli helps

writers know exactly what they need to do next, through concrete revision plans,

and it helps reviewers learn to give better comments. The result? Better writing,

better writers, and better reviewers.

Write. Review. Revise. Repeat.

c237-238-Jan2013-CE.indd 237 11/12/12 3:59 PM

you get more | bedfordstmartins.comBedford/St. Martin’s

DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Facing title page — ad size: 5 x 7.625]

Expect more from your literature anthology

bedfordstmartins.com/ meyerlit/catalog

NEw

Make connections between literature and life

Talk (and write) about literature …

A great selection of literature at a great price

bedfordstmartins.com/experience_literature/catalog bedfordstmartins.com/

charters/catalog

bedfordstmartins.com/literatureportable/catalog

How will you introduce your students to literature?

NEw

NEw

NEw

c237-238-Jan2013-CE.indd 238 11/12/12 3:59 PM

you get more | bedfordstmartins.comBedford/St. Martin’s

DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Left A — ad size: 5 x 7.625] DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Right A — ad size: 5 x 7.625]

New readers for 2013Great readers give students something interesting to write about. Increasingly, what’s

interesting isn’t in print alone, but online — video, audio, linked text, photos, animation.

So now, Bedford/St. Martin’s readers live both in print and online. Look for e-Pages that

extend your book beyond the printed page, and take advantage of what the Web can do.

e242-244-Jan2013-CE.indd 242 11/12/12 4:04 PM

you get more | bedfordstmartins.comBedford/St. Martin’s

DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Left A — ad size: 5 x 7.625] DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: Right A — ad size: 5 x 7.625]

Understanding RhetoricA Graphic Guide to Writing

Elizabeth Losh, Jonathan AlexanderKevin Cannon, Zander Cannon

This comics-style collaboration between rhetoricians

Elizabeth Losh and Jonathan Alexander and illustrator

team Big Time Attic presents the content of the

composition course in a form designed to draw

students in. Understanding Rhetoric: A Graphic Guide

to Writing covers what first-year college writers

need to know—the writing process, critical analysis,

argument, research, revision, and presentation—in a

visual format that brings rhetorical concepts to life.

The first completely illustrated guide to writing

bedfordstmartins.com/understandingrhetoric/catalog

NEw

The Guide is now better than ever—

The St. Martin’s Guide to WritingTenth Edition

Rise B. Axelrod, University of California, Riverside

Charles R. Cooper, University of California, San Diego

Also available in a shorter edition and as an e-book.

The best-selling college rhetoric for over 25

years, The St. Martin’s Guide is built on practical

innovations for the ever-changing composition

course. Now the Guide is the first rhetoric to

integrate e-Pages that come alive online with video,

Web sites, podcasts, and more. With streamlined

bedfordstmartins.com/theguide/catalog

NEw

in print and online

chapters and more hands-on activities for critical reading and working with sources,

the new edition does even more to help students focus on what matters most.

e242-244-Jan2013-CE.indd 243 11/12/12 4:04 PM

you get more | bedfordstmartins.comBedford/St. Martin’s

DO NOT PRINT [publication: College English [NCTE] (Jan 2013) — placement: One full Page — ad size: 5 x 7.625]

bedfordstmartins.com/practicecreativewriting/catalog

All new for the creative writing course

bedfordstmartins.com/kardos/catalog

Also available as an e-book

Also available as an e-book

bedfordstmartins.com/starkey/catalog

Reading Children’s LiteratureA Critical IntroductionCarrie Hintz, Queens College

Eric L. Tribunella, University of Southern Mississippi

Informed by recent scholarship and interest in cultural

studies and critical theory, Reading Children’s Literature:

A Critical Guide is a compact core text that introduces

students to the historical contexts, genres, and issues

of children’s literature. A beautifully designed and

illustrated supplement to the individual literary works

assigned, it provides helpful apparatus that makes it a

complete resource for working with children’s literature

both during and after the course.

bedfordstmartins.com/childlit/catalog

Read children’s literature happily—but critically—ever after

1ST EDITION

1ST EDITION

e242-244-Jan2013-CE.indd 244 11/12/12 4:04 PM

From the Editor 245

College English, Volume 75, Number 3, January 2013

From the Editor

E

Kelly Ritter

very so often, the stars align and the submissions we get speak to one another—unintentionally—in very productive ways. Generally, my quest is to assemble issues that cohere on some level, or start a thread of related questions, quests, or even controversies for readers to enjoy across issues during the publication

year. But rarely—at least so far in my editorship—have article submissions also come to me in a sequence that allows them to appear side by side in a single issue, in direct dialogue. The issue you are holding represents one of these rare, fortuitous moments, when we are able to showcase two article pairings that became, in rhetorical terms, a kairotic moment. One of these pairings is on basic writing and the other, on religious discourse and first-year writing.

I think one could safely argue that both religious discourse in the writing classroom and basic writing as reflective of local or national political agendas are frequently marginalized subjects of study in the field of rhetoric and composition. Now, certainly our field has seen fine scholarship in both of these areas, and our classrooms and programs are all the better for this scholarship. But when we talk about rhetoric and composition in the university (or in the supermarket, or in our neighborhood gatherings), I am certainly far less likely to hear informed and sustained conversation on either of these topics, outside of the polemical kind. I therefore see a kinship not just inside, but also between, each of this issue’s two pairings. Basic writers are often regarded as “different” or “difficult” or “not fitting” in the typi-cal writing classroom (whatever that is), and the political response to their needs is often fraught with anxieties over access, standards, and community values (both the university’s and the public’s). First-year writers with strong religious views, or whose academic identity aims to be built upon their faith in any number of ways, are also seen as different, difficult, or out of place—at least in secular institutions. And public institutions often struggle with the balance between respectful regard and the infamous church-state line in the delivery of a public education. Basic writers and writers of openly expressed faith can share that hot-potato status in first-year

f245-247-Jan2013-CE.indd 245 11/1/12 4:11 PM

246 College English

writing programs, therefore, and can be profoundly affected by the ways in which the nonacademic public affords them agency inside or outside the “mainstream” college or university community.

From a purely selfish perspective, I’m especially interested in this issue of Col-lege English as a reader because—as many of you know—basic writing scholarship is near and dear to my heart. But I’m also interested because religious discourse and writing instruction is something I would like to learn more about, especially as a teacher who finds herself transplanted to the South, where faith is fairly important to many of my institution’s students. Plus—my own predilections aside—I hope that if nothing else, our field’s journals help readers like me learn more about the areas of research that they feel they should know something about, and, ideally, understand.

I am thus pleased to be able to showcase four very thoughtful and, I think, thought-provoking pieces on these two types of marginalized writers in the academy. Jeffrey Ringer’s “The Consequences of Integrating Faith into Academic Writing” uses Kenneth Burke’s concept of casuistic stretching, or “one introduces new prin-ciples while theoretically remaining faithful to old principles” (qtd. on p. 274) to better understand the rhetorical strategies and writerly positioning of his evangelical first-year student “Austin.” Ringer argues that “construct[ing] a discoursal identity [. . .] makes it possible for Austin to reenvision his evangelical identity in pluralistic terms” (291) while noting that a good deal more research—developed cautiously, and without assuming any existing students (such as Austin) can serve as singular mod-els—is needed into faith-based discourse in the writing classroom. Comparatively, T J Geiger II’s article, “Unpredictable Encounters: Religious Discourse, Sexuality, and the Free Exercise of Rhetoric,” is concerned with religious discourse in first-year writing, but insofar as it intersects with sexual identities, particularly as they are theorized in a cultural studies-based writing curriculum (in this case, at Syracuse University). Geiger contends that “one assumption the field makes about the value of religion in the classroom [is that] some students bring religion with them as an identity with attendant rhetorical resources. In particular, a topos of religion as per-sonal is privileged” (250). He thus puts forward the need for “a pedagogical option that takes religion seriously as a topic and identity, but that does not necessarily start from or privilege students’ personal experience with religion,” and his employment of the free exercise of rhetoric allows him to “understand religion as both a personal commitment and a discursive field with which believers and nonbelievers alike can (and, at times, must) engage” (250).

Following these two articles, readers will find Joyce Olewski Inman’s “‘Standard’ Issue: Public Discourse, Ayers v. Fordice, and the Dilemma of the Basic Writer” and David Nielsen and Patrick Sullivan’s “‘Ability to Benefit’: Making Forward-Looking Decisions about Our Most Underprepared Students.” Both Inman and Sullivan and

f245-247-Jan2013-CE.indd 246 11/1/12 4:11 PM

From the Editor 247

Nielsen cast their subject (basic writers) in the context of cultural and political as-sumptions about these writers (in Inman’s article, through the Ayers v. Fordice case regarding desegregation in Mississippi, a case that lasted over twenty-five years from initial filing in 1975 to final decision in 2001; in Sullivan and Nielsen’s article, through the notion of “ability to benefit” as a 2001 federal guideline that lingers on campuses today regarding the award of financial aid). Whereas Sullivan and Nielsen’s article interrogates the very nomenclature of ability to benefit using both local research from their own community college and recent scholarship on basic writing, Inman takes an archival approach through a close investigation of this important case itself, noting in particular the public response to Ayers v. Fordice in order to “initiate a conversation regarding how media and community responses to such legal discourse frame writing programming at the local level” (299). But both articles question the public regard for students whose literacy levels—whether as constructed by a racist public or by a hands-off government—are seen as beyond or below the reasonable measures a community can and should take to educate its citizens. Inman and Sul-livan and Nielsen both question why basic writers are regarded en masse rather than as individuals, and what happens when race and class are added in as critical factors in educational practices.

This issue of CE will, I hope, leave our readers ready to enliven and inform the campus or community conversation that’s already taking place regarding student writers—especially the writers discussed in this issue, who fall just outside the main-stream. And for those of you wanting more dialogue on the positive and negative intersections of campus and community (or communities, as the case may be), and how rhetoric and composition as a field often starts those dialogues, I hope these articles will be a little bit of what you are looking for, too. Happy reading.

f245-247-Jan2013-CE.indd 247 11/1/12 4:11 PM