• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

The Annotated Bibliography of Articles About Ann Berthoff

Articles about the Author

Booth acknowledges the value of Berthoff’s book as a theoretical, not practical, discussion of the meaning-making that is at the center of her work. He warns and challenges composition teachers to understand and use the book. He goes so far as to hail it as a teachers’ book, not by an outsider of the field of composition.

Carey is biting with his review of Berthoff’s work, referring to her previous work as in “amusing hoax” and readers of her present book “duller witted” (496). He does not buy into her idea that Marvell’s poems concern themselves with the soul and believes that readers should be more focused on the poem’s more straightforward meanings.

Chapman believes, among other things, that the writing generated within Berthoff’s double-entry journal can also be found in the final version of writing as well as in prewriting where the journal is used, citing the dialectical structures of subtle metaphors and irony in prose in the writing of some contemporary authors.

Dobrin expresses a half-serious response to Berthoff’s criticisms of his earlier article in which he claims simply makes his point that “we argue more and that argumentation be more responsible.”

France acknowledges that the center of Berthoff’s and his disagreement is their differing ideas of language used to create a “critical consciousness.” He holds to the notion that introductory composition courses should give students opportunities to understand the social relationships found in and made through language.

Guffey writes a favorable review of the book. His only lament is that Berthoff does note spend more time on Marvell’s “His Coy Mistress”.

Keith calls Berthoff’s 1978 book Forming/Thinking/Writing “wonderful, and the world might well become a very different place if it were used in every quarter of freshman composition classes in the country” (98). He argues that her overall point and her models “are grounded in a broad knowledge of the history of western philosophy and method to a degree rare in writing texts, and they embody a philosophy of writing pedagogy that is unconventional and carefully thought-out and articulated” (99). But, he, like other reviewers, finds some portions of the book “puzzling, and even bad” (101). Overall, Keith finds the book useful and exciting for both students and teachers.

This Lauer’s defense of the insights other disciplines, specifically cognitive psychology, might yield for teachers of writing for which Berthoff dismisses. She further argues that Berthoff makes illogical assumptions about the true nature of problem solving as a narrowly defined activity that is separate from creativity.

Richmond takes issue with Berthoff’s criticism of his literal interpretations of literature, arguing that they have value in the analysis of literature when examining the facts within the texts.

Reising offers a favorable review of Berthoff’s book. He argues what Berthoff “produces is both valid and readable, a paperback that every professional, regardless of teaching level, should examine” (70). Liner concurs that the book it valuable; nevertheless, it is “heavy” for beginning college freshman writers (70).

Sale is critical of the form and structure of Berthoff’s writing since “after two readings” is is “not sure” that he “quite grasps the implications of what [she] is saying” (358). He half injures and half praises. He finds her “way of weaving Marvell’s abstractions into her own prose” helpful (359). And he judges her “precise way with abstract nouns” as “telling” (360).

Self acknowledges that Berthoff’s “intention is to broaden and deepen our understanding of what it means to teach a writing course and of what we ask our students to do when they write” in this brief favorable review (77).

Overall, Slevin finds the book useful for advanced composition students, but his primary criticism is that scholars in the field want “an extended argument that integrates [Berthoff’s] ideas on writing and pedagogy within a coherent vision of humanities education.”

Wallace comments on why he enjoyed Berthoff’s book in this brief review.

Wilding finds Berthoff’s book like the other “commonplace . . . unhelpful, pretentious, and absurd” commentaries on Marvell’s poetry (288). He finds her work too full of “theory and analysis, not simple description” (289).

---. “Ross Winterowd Responds.” College English 50.1 (1988): 96.

Winterowd’s 34-word admonishment of Berthoff’s response to his negative critique of her book Forming/Thinking/Writing.

Young commends Berthoff for her 1978 freshman composition text as “is a demanding and worthwhile text for students” (64).