51³Ô¹Ï

Yellowlees Douglas¡¯ plea for a ¡°scientific¡± approach to teaching writing skills is understandably a plug for her new book, which may be very good (¡°Unlocking the black box¡±, Opinion, 6 August). Judging from her article, however, its practical prescriptions are a mixture of common sense and what good writing guides have long advised, given additional authority by the invocation of neuroscience.

Although Douglas talks dismissively about the ¡°watered-down remnants of Aristotelian rhetoric¡±, what is this if not an example of establishing Aristotelian ethos by association ¨C ¡°conveying your credibility¡±, as Douglas puts it? Writing clearly and correctly is crucial, but it is only part of what students need to learn: style was only one of the five canons of Roman rhetoric. Among other things, students also need to learn how to construct ¨C and critique ¨C arguments (Aristotle¡¯s logos). Nobody would look to an ancient Greek for practical guidance on writing clearly in English, but clarity of expression is only part of the picture: studying and practising rhetoric gives you the whole.

Neil Foxlee
Lancaster