tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4735245268454268681.post3384042208673701636..comments2009-04-06T14:33:55.847-07:00Comments on RCID 803: Week 11: HistoriographyWendyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15032349508396021975noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4735245268454268681.post-46196794803120893472009-04-06T14:33:00.000-07:002009-04-06T14:33:00.000-07:00Well, Wendy, when I wrote my post this week, I act...Well, Wendy, when I wrote my post this week, I actually decided differently about the kinds of historiogrphies each author was written. We both said that Corbett was traditional, but I would say that Howard’s was also traditional, whereas Zappen attempts to redefine the way in which we view the history of rhetoric. Because Zappen announces three different versions of history to analyze and compares them with his new interpretation added, I would say his is “revisionary.” I guess the class discussion will tell us who is right. Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13539327807549395128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4735245268454268681.post-4135050108743536612009-04-06T08:13:00.000-07:002009-04-06T08:13:00.000-07:00Wendy this is a nice post. I like the way you took...Wendy this is a nice post. I like the way you took the extra step by including Vitanza's notes about the 3 schools of history. I think it helps to note how Aristotelian, 19c. claims to objective representation, and Marxian approaches delineate the contours of the discussion as we approach it today. Thanks for including this in your review.nmcfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06685306402714601390noreply@blogger.com