pp. 43-53

As a class, we are able to recognize the importance of classical rhetoric. Our current writing process is derived from that of classical rhetoric; therefore, we must study the past in order to be good teachers in the future. As Williams states, "anyone who would be serious about composition needs to go back to the roods and study the classics, particularly Aristotle, and it provides a historical and theoretical rationale for viewing composition as part of a rhetorical tradition 2,500 years old" (Williams, 52).

Do you agree with Williams in that respect? In other words, do you think that an individual must have a solid understanding of classical rhetoric in order to thrive in the field of composition?

I agree, mostly, with what Williams is saying. I am firm believer in the idea that, in order to understand where you're going and how to get there, you need to reflect upon what has been in the past. By studying the history of rhetoric, writers can better understand how current composition and classical rhetoric are intertwined.

Another interesting aspect of this text can be found on page 43. Williams states, There is no evidence... that years of contact with literature develops critical thinking." Do you feel that critical thinking should be a teaching requirement? Or, do you agree with Williams' belief that the study of literature is not efficacious in developing critical-thinking skills?