You asked for comment on the
I was immediately struck by the comment in the "Rhetorical Patterns" section of the "Online Handbook" portion - - that "All writing is composed of combinations of these rhetorical patterns." First, I don't think the claim is true (and it's qualified to "commonly used" when you get to the actual page). Second, I'm not sure it's effective pedagogy - - choose a "pattern" or template, and add detail. This form-first-content-later approach is reinforced in the list of "Types / Parts of a Report" with their "typical components."
Wouldn't it be useful to put any comments on "rhetorical pattern" in the context of some (barebones) genre theory? And to acknowledge that even seemingly formulaic writing in engineering is often more invention, less formula than appears to be the case at first blush? And to superordinate (sorry) planning process strategies (i.e. that would help engineers devise their own structures)? You've got these AFTER Types / Parts of a Report and "Accurate Documentation."
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
[log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
For the list archives and information about the organization,
the annual conference, and publications, go to the Inkshed Web site at