Wikipedia calls him "the bad boy of rhetoric"
For last week, we read a couple of articles written by prominent members in the field of rhetoric in composition. Each of these author writes in response to a question posed regarding their particular field of study.
Jeff Rice, who likes to write about cool, writes about what he feels college English should be. In his words, "College English should be new media." For Rice, college English needs to embrace the idea of the network culture and the new media that has become such a large part of this culture. Rice says that "we must invent a new metaphor because on its own 'writing' feels too limited in an age of total information delivery and connectivity." What he means by this is that it is foolish to continue writing in our traditional static methods when the rest of the world is so rapidly changing. Therefore, an ideal college English class for Rice would be somewhere along the lines of our English 201 class which makes use of new media technologies instead of relying on the traditional formulaic methods that have become so commonplace in the university.
In Vitanza's essay, he decides that he doesn't really want to answer any question, and in
stead uses his letter to try to prove a point. Despite what my initial reaction was, Vitanza's point is not simply that he is a smug bastard content with entertaining himself with his own writing. Instead, Vitanza employs a form of unique rhetoric of his own in order to make a statement. This statement is that, as students, we have become so used to conventional forms and standards of writing, that we feel completely lost and frustrated when an author deviates from this feeling of familiarity. Vitanza does make this point, as I found myself completely at a loss throughout much of his essay.





