Climbing Bain Hill

Hill and Bain had significant impact on views of rhetoric, its application to composition, and the most effective ways to teach writing. Bain’s recognition right up front that teachers only witness a part of a student writer’s growth struck me as cool. Sometimes I have to remind myself that all writers, regardless of their present maturity (or lack thereof), change over time. Our “fund of expression” (1145) grows and fine-tunes, developing nuances. Some philosopher, Heroclitus maybe? said we never step into the same river twice—it’s not the same river and I’m not the same person each time. So I understand his admission of the limitation of teaching composition.

Here’s another cool thing about the man: he’s not shy about slapping Quintilian! 1147: those old guys made a difference between figures of speech and tropes, but “the distinction is more in appearance than in substance, and has no practical value.” In other words, I’m throwing out the difference and here’s why—it’s meaningless. Can’t make practical use of it.

No doubt Bain’s motives were honorable. He set out to structure the way people think about and teach writing, breaking the whole down into very detailed parts. The modes prevailed, certainly. I’m pretty sure my high school teachers (back in the 70s) must have known Bain personally and felt a responsibility to carry on his work--!

Despite his good intentions and the postive aspects of his contribution, however, I feel sorta limited when I think about his approach. I disagree with Hill that rhetoric is an art, not a science; it’s both, if you ask me. But I wonder, where’s the room for art in Bain’s way?