calling all users of ARCS

As I mentioned in a previous post, Sharon and I have been asked to cut a rather ridiculous number of pages from the last four chapters of our textbook. That we can't take those pages from the first eight, which are running very long, is frustrating. That we weren't told our book would have to be the same exact size as our previous edition is infuriating.

On the chopping block, then, are two chapters: chapter 9 on sophistic topics (definition, division, etc.), and chapter 12 on Memory.

Collin and I were joking on Friday about how Sharon and I were going to erase memory from the canon, and while it's kind of funny, it's really rather depressing. The problem is that the chapter on sophistic topics has some usable stuff for composition--like what goes into a good definition, and how definitions can be incorporated into arguments--whereas the memory chapter has some useful stuff for history of rhetoric, such as a treatment of ancient memory systems, which were pretty damned cool. Complicating matters is the fact that our book, for those of you who don't know, has two audiences: those who use it as a resource for ancient rhetoric, and those who use it as their comp textbook. So you can see why we're at something of an impasse about which one to cut.

Our editor favors memory, probably because the bucks aren't made with grad students who consult our book on the shelves of their comp office. We on the other hand cherish those readers.

Trimming down at this point isn't really an option.

So I'm asking you, dear readers, especially those who use ARCS in either of the ways mentioned above, which one could you do without?

Comments

[Donna]

I've used ARCS as both a required resource book in undergraduate courses that introduce the history of rhetoric and as a composition text in advanced courses. Although I might not use the memory chapter in the latter situation, I would use it in the former. And I agree--it's got some great stuff in it. I vote for keeping Memory!

[chris]

crap. that sucks (as if i need to point that out to you).

for reasons too complicated to go into here, the institution at which i currently teach is not fertile grounds for employing ARCS as either a composition text or an intro to history of rhet text (the latter b/c we don't offer such a thing and the former b/c right now -for institutional reasons- it's not a viable option for the LD students i teach). would that it were, and i have pushed for ARCS in one/both capacities (give me time!), i'd be more inclined to use the chapter on Memory.

i, too, vote for keeping Memory.

[J. K. Gayle]

As a CS of AR at the graduate level, I'm not going to help you decide one bit. I will say that you'd better keep memory with the "pretty damned cool" stuff. But how can you leave out "sophistic" if you do seem to insinuate it's less "useful stuff for history of rhetoric" and simply more "usable stuff for composition"? Can you cram some of the sophistic, like Trojan warriors, in one chapter, like a Longman-editor's Greek horse, somewhere? (and we won't tell until it's too late). Since we contemplating silencing the sophists somehow, can you reassure us your AR in the new edition won't silence women (such as Sappho and Aspasia) and will give us (with them) various feminist rhetorical criticisms for the C composition classroom?

[John]

While I would never recommend cutting memory out of the canon, I'm wondering if a possible solution might be to create a downloadable PDF supplement or web site? I'm assuming the size issue is one of publication cost, so while there would be some cost involved in putting some material online, it would be much less than including it in the published book.

[rx]

this is the best textbook in at least a generation. i used it a lot at UT, and talked with sharon about the first edition. the problem is the industry. but we all know that. still, all of us knowing that, we need to find a better way. i've not been willing to do another textbook precisely because of the industry. the problem with what john suggests, though it's a great suggestion, is that multimedia textbooks end up costing more rather than less. ARCS costs between $50 and $75. one of its many, many virtues is that it is helpful for both undergrad and grad courses/students. given the political economy of the textbook industry, dear ones, i guess you'll just have to cut and cut and cut. or, perhaps, finally do two books instead of one, cutting certain things for the undergrad audiences and certain things for the grad ones. but this is still a pisser. it'd be interesting to learn how much the authors have made from this textbook -- and i bet it's relatively little, given how much the publisher charges for each copy. with love and concern,
rx

[ddd]

WTF? Why do you have to cut one of those two chapters? I don't get the reasoning. I use this book for my Principles of Rhetoric class, so lemme look at it more carefully and see if i can be helpful...rather than simply grumping. But this sucks. !

[bonnie kyburz]

new publisher?

[M. McGinnis]

Any chance the missing lot would be available for download at the publisher's website? Then, to some degree, it wouldn't really matter which section got cut, as long as it was still available somewhere for peeps who've adopted ARCS.

This from someone who's planning to adopt ARCS either Winter semester or fall, btw.

[M. McGinnis]

Any chance the missing lot would be available for download at the publisher's website? Then, to some degree, it wouldn't really matter which section got cut, as long as it was still available somewhere for peeps who've adopted ARCS.

This from someone who's planning to adopt ARCS either Winter semester or fall, btw.

[Aspasia]

Thanks for your helpful comments, folks, and for the nice things said about ARCS too. Longman is forcing us to make these cuts. We weren't told while we were writing the 4th edition that this would be necessary but learned of it only two weeks ago. The cuts need to come from the end of the book because its early chapters have already been produced. As a colleague of mine said on being told this sad story: "Now there's a pedagogically sound way to make editing decisions!" Indeed.

Sharon known usually here as Aspasia

[David Beard]

Anything that would suggest cutting questions of definition and various argumentation strategies hurts me.

I hate to call out the Speech/English spilt, but a section on Memory, in terms of rhetorical production, is hard to find even in public speaking texts -- and so hard to justify in a primarily composition text. And if ARCS has no market in introductory comm classes, it feels very, very hard to make a memory chapter seem usable.

Perhaps a better question might be whether there is a companion volume imaginable that would make inroads into the Comm market. Such a book could be reconfigured to make the memory chapter more relevant, and result in a set of companion books for grad students (a la the companion Foss, Foss & Trapp books).

Just a thought.

[dhawhee]

Thanks, everyone. I can't respond to everyone here, except to say that these are all good ideas. And also to clarify (thanks, David) that the book does in fact get used in comm classes, but these aren't seen as the 'bread and butter' classes that the FYC class is.