# data[].attributes.body
Efferent reading, with "efferent" deriving from the Latin "effere" - meaning "to carry away", is the term Rosenblatt coined to describe a specific type of reading. This form of reading is focused on "what will remain as the residue after the reading" (Rosenblatt, 23-4). Rosenblatt morbidly uses the example of a mother furiously reading through the poison warning label for an antidote to administer to her child - with the emphasis being she is trying to get through the reading as quickly as possible to retain which pieces of information serve most useful in practical purpose. Rosenblatt emphasizes the impersonal and efficient practice of this sort of reading wherein the attention is directed outward.

# data[].attributes.body
The contrast of efferent reading, aesthetic reading's "primary concern is what happens during the actual reading event" (Rosenblatt, 24). While the reader may decipher images or concepts in the same way they may during an efferent reading, the reader also focuses on "feelings, attitudes, and ideas that these words and their referents arouse within him". (Rosenblatt, 25). To put it more eloquently, "in aesthetic reading, the reader's attention is centered directly on what he is living through during his relationship with that particular text" (Rosenblatt, 25).

# data[].attributes.headline
The Five Essential Characteristics of Effective Composing:

# data[].attributes.subject
The Five Essential Characteristics of Effective Composing:

# data[].attributes.body
1. Planning involves two supportive processes: goal-setting and knowledge mobilization. These processes reflect commonly accepted behaviors, such as setting purposes, evaluating current knowledge, narrowing topics and goals, and self-questioning.

When it comes to "goal-setting, " we may examine a topic, determine how we would write about it, and inquire about it.

When thinking of "knowledge mobilization," they describe how we organize facts. We must make the text logical and orderly while engaging the reader in the text.

2. Drafting is defined as clarifying meaning as readers and writers deal directly with the print on the page as they see it. I can say that drafting was not something I did not master until college, and even then, it was not an area I was not strong or confident in, but I found a "lead" my writing was headed in the right direction. As stated in the article, "What every reader needs, like every writer, is a first draft."

3. Alignment in this article is briefed as having two facets: stances a reader or writer assumes in collaboration with their author or audience and roles within which they immerse themselves as they proceed with the topic. This is speaking about rhetorical reading.  As readers and writers, we must question, analyze, and ask who, what, when, and where to address the text and confirm that it conveys what we think it is. When considering alignment, we must re-evaluate our initial understanding as we encounter new information that may challenge or support our initial thoughts to understand the writer's intended meaning and purpose within the text.

4. Revising: As we develop drafts, we must examine our developing interpretations subject to revision, such as rereading, annotating, and questioning whether the model built is what is expected, with a focus on revising your writing. Revising also involves choosing words that will have the desired impact and intent.

5. Monitoring is all about self-evaluation of the text. Tierney and Pearson ask, "Have we planned, aligned, drafted, and revised properly? " Monitoring decides when one task should dominate over the others. It tells us when we have done an awesome job and when we need to improve. It tells us when to go back to the drawing board and when we can relax.

Monitoring and revising also helped understand when I needed to re-read, seek clarification, or adjust my reading strategy.

# data[].attributes.body
Since nearly 1985, scholars in both composition and literature have been begging for an integrated approach to learning. In other words, begging to "end the war between reading and writing."

They argued that an integrated approach could create a better learning environment for students that could provide aspects of reading, writing, interpreting, speaking and listening." This would not only create active listeners and learners but teach students how to participate in democracy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Rhetoric gives you a framework to think critically about your writing and reading choices.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the particular advantages of rhetorical reading? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the particular advantages of rhetorical reading? 

# data[].attributes.body
Rhetorical reading overall is important to whole critical reading process.

Rhetorical reading offers a more profound understanding of the writer's intent, the ability to critically analyze how language is used to influence an audience, determine potential biases, identify the context of a text, and improve your writing skills by comprehending how different rhetorical strategies work; basically, it allows you to read actively and thoughtfully, going beyond just understanding the surface level meaning of a text.

# data[].attributes.headline
Although Composition scholars were, at this same time, rising as a discipline (that is, professionalizing), why does Harking think that they also ignored the possible usefulness of Reader Response Theory for composition pedagogy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Although Composition scholars were, at this same time, rising as a discipline (that is, professionalizing), why does Harking think that they also ignored the possible usefulness of Reader Response Theory for composition pedagogy?

# data[].attributes.body
Harkin suggests that despite the initial embrace of reader-response theory in composition studies, the drive towards professionalization led to its eventual downfall. She offers several critical reasons for this shift:

Emphasis on Writing as a Distinct Discipline: Composition scholars desired to establish writing as a legitimate academic discipline separate from literary studies. They aimed to develop their theories, methodologies, and areas of inquiry. This drive for disciplinary independence led to focusing on writing as the primary object of study, removing reading and related theories like reader-response theory.

Conflating Reader-Response Theory with Literary Studies: Because reader-response theory originated in literary studies and was often used to analyze literary texts, it became associated with the very field composition studies were trying to move away from. According to Harkin, this association led to the belief that rejecting literary texts in composition courses also meant rejecting reading instruction.

Distancing from Pedagogical Associations: Harkin observes that many early supporters of reader-response theory, primarily focused on literary criticism, sought to distance themselves from its pedagogical implications. This desire to focus on theory and research further contributed to the perception that reader-response theory was primarily a pedagogical tool rather than a vital theoretical framework suitable for a professionalized discipline.

Harkin argues that the professionalization of composition studies, while a positive development overall, had the unintended consequence of neglecting the crucial role of reading in teaching writing. She believes that the rejection of reader-response theory along with literary texts was a missed opportunity to enhance composition pedagogy.

# data[].attributes.headline
According to Harkin, why was Reader Response Theory dropped in English Studies, particularly literature, during the Theory Boom?

# data[].attributes.subject
According to Harkin, why was Reader Response Theory dropped in English Studies, particularly literature, during the Theory Boom?

# data[].attributes.body
During the Theory Boom, a key period in English Studies, Patricia Harkin notes that Reader Response Theory was moved to the side for two key reasons:

Elitism in literary theory: The Theory Boom led to a professionalization of literary theory, where complex and challenging theories were preferred. Theories like deconstruction, new historicism, and Lacanian psychoanalysis offered specialized knowledge that made their adherents more sophisticated. By contrast, Reader Response Theory was seen as too teachable and accessible, failing to create an exclusive group of "experts."

With its roots in the political turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s, Reader Response Theory emerged as a counterbalance to traditional literary authority. It advocated popular participation and challenged the author's authority to create meaning. This populist essence, however, made it less attractive to literary theorists aspiring to an exclusive elite status.

Harkin argues that the Theory Boom needed to deauthorize Reader Response Theory to maintain its elitist status. Conversely, Reader Response Theory's continued association with populism and accessibility contributed to its decline within literary studies.

She points out that figures like Stanley Fish criticized Reader Response theorists like Wolfgang Iser for making reading "teachable," suggesting that theory should be intimidating and exclusive. Jonathan Culler's observation that traditional literary studies privilege the "invisible" over the "visible" further supports Harkin's claim. Saying that the Reader Response Theory threatened the power structures within literary studies.

While composition studies initially embraced Reader Response Theory for its pedagogical value, it ultimately went out of fashion as composition studies sought to professionalize, focusing on writing as a distinct discipline separate from reading and literary theory.

Harkin concludes that, due to these historical developments, the thinkers who could help us most understand reading have "faded from the discussion."

# data[].attributes.headline
All Art Aspires to the Condition of Music

# data[].attributes.subject
All Art Aspires to the Condition of Music

# data[].attributes.body
Rosenblatt's theory of aesthetic reading, as covered, is centered around the emotive act of giving a text your full attention - in consideration of it as a literary work of art. Rosenblatt muses that "the reader of a text who evokes a literary work of art is, above all, a performer, in the same sense that a pianist performs a sonata, reading it from the text before him". Calling into play the vantage point of the performer, Rosenblatt refers to Pater's dictum, "all art aspires to the condition of music". Rosenblatt points out that in this argument, the primary concern is the musical event itself, wherein "the performer's attention is absorbed in what he is producing as he plays" - much like the demand of "complete absorption" of aesthetic reading wherein the reader's focus is what feelings, thoughts, ideas are produced as he reads (Rosenblatt, 28-9).

# data[].attributes.body
The Tierney and Pearson model stresses that reading is not just passively receiving information but an involved process where the reader creates meaning by engaging with the text like a writer, making inferences, and constantly monitoring their understanding. As Tierney and Pearson put it, "There is no meaning on the page until a reader decides there is" (2).

This model considers reading a active process in which the reader takes on the writer's role. The reader actively creates meaning from the text by using the five essential parts: planning, drafting, aligning, revising, and monitoring their performance.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Three Kinds of Reading, outlined by Haas and Flower. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Three Kinds of Reading, outlined by Haas and Flower. 

# data[].attributes.body
Rhetorical Reading strategy is used to predict and interpret texts and solve comprehension problems, considering the context, audience, and persuasive techniques used. It also helps develop a more detailed understanding of others and their texts.

Function/feature strategies concentrate on information gathered within the text, emphasizing elements like headings, transitions, paragraphs, and sentence structure. Readers create functional or relational structures for the text. This strategy is often used to name what the text was "doing":

Content Reading Strategies involve content or topic information, such as "what the text is about." determining the main ideas, facts, and arguments introduced within the text. The reader's goal in using content strategies is to get information from the text (175).

# data[].attributes.body
Rhetorical reading requires active teaching through direct instruction, modeling, and encouraging students to embody the expectations, norms, and conventions of writing. As college students think, many of us can relate to reading a text and comprehend what we read but cannot count the meaning and purpose of the text or the author's intent.

Rhetorical reading takes time to learn and teach and may be necessary in the more comprehensive critical reading process. Rhetorical reading brings more value and meaning to the content and discourse of that discipline.

# data[].attributes.body
Although integrating literature and composition is ideal- there are some complications.

These include:

Texts- what are they? How are they produced? How should we be reading them?

Texts are not often interpreted the same. People read texts with different assumptions, perspectives, lens, and views. We may not come up with the same themes or messages.

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of this essay was to "examine the emergence of contemporary reading practices and the classical reading practices." Additionally, to recognize the institutional disparities between the approach to text production and reception.

Something scholars and readers need to recognize is that composition studies view texts as containers of signs to be decoded by the knowing subject and literary critics are concerned with the history of reading as it relates to literary texts. Mainly these key differences are shown by composition's focus on the history of textual production rather than reception.

Composition scholars tend to want "a reexamination of textual practices, including reading practices- specifically how histories might help us rethink our present approaches to text.

# data[].attributes.body
Texts are approached differently and Harrington argues that it is shown through the Classical versus Modern lens.

Classical: Literary texts were "modes of invention and structural features based on a common rhetorical tradition." Students could have a better understanding of their readings and production of discourse through rhetorical situations. Reading allowed for students to master rhetorical strategies and were models for better understanding their own discourse. Reading helped prepare students for writing exercises and writing exercises helped students become better readers. Classical lens viewed literature as direct communication with the author giving readers understanding of their thoughts and emotions.

Because textual production used in literary texts embodied the rules of rhetoric that could be learned by anyone who applied him or herself, literary texts were not seen as works that reflected the unique thoughts of the individual author, nor were they seen as objects to be analyzed for their own sake apart from student writing. Classical writing and studies focused on language and rhetorical structure.

Modern lens

With a modern lens, we view reading and writing as a view into someone's mind. Now the texts actually represent the author and their thoughts, not just language. Writing now embodies natural functions of inner mental and emotional processes. This allows for students to feel more active in the literary texts and perhaps feel the purpose more vividly.

# data[].attributes.body
The new, modern approach gave students the ability to find identity with the text, but also opened the questions of ethics in literature. Some argued that it derive youth from selfish endeavors like drinking, hunting, gambling, etc. Reading could provide youth with a moral compass and good ideas. Readers can also learn to see both beauty and faults within literary, aesthetic pieces of work. There is the argument about the taste of literary work having a direct correspondence to different sets of virtues (i.e., intellectual, moral, civic, etc.) Consequently, the failure of integrating and not recognizing the importance of integrating composition and literature has prohibited the development of pedagogy that allows students to have this moral compass development.

# data[].attributes.body
Textbooks are choosing to use a more rhetorical approach to approaching writing and assumptions in literature. Students can recognize ethos and pathos and how the same concept looks different in a variety of literary works. However, Harrington argues that we still fall short in creating writing exercises that match the level of academic ability we have for recognizing rhetoric. We need to find better ways to transfer critical thinking skills from reading and discourse to writing exercises. They can often respond to literary arguments but there is still a struggle with the idea of formation. Harrington calls for educators to adapt their classroom practices so that students "can make connections between their own texts and the texts they read" while upholding "to address the historical conditionals out of which current approaches to texts emerged."