This collection is weighty, offering the reader 28 essays on first (L1) and second (L2) language writing theory and method in the college composition classroom, although the concepts of “theory” and “method” become problematic by the end of the collection. In their preface, the editors—who work with basic writers, English as a second language (ESL) writers, and first-year composition students—state that the book arose out of their conversations about the needs and strengths of these writers. The editors' backgrounds offered them an opportunity to look at the issue of college writing from a variety of perspectives as they began the task of selecting pieces for the collection. Three years and 300 articles later, they came down to 28 pieces, divided thematically into four parts—teaching writing, becoming a writer, responding to writing, and beyond the writing classroom. One of the editors wrote a separate introductory essay for each part, providing a comprehensive overview; indeed, one of the strengths of the anthology is the editorial voice that opens each section.

Part 1 focuses on the teaching of composition in the college classroom. This is familiar territory to anyone involved in the study of L1 writing—for example, Rose, Bartholome, and Shor. Gilyard's piece on African American discourse provides an excellent introduction to linguistic diversity in the composition classroom. The section ends with an essay on first-year composition. Absent from this section is a discussion of L2 writing, despite the claims that the anthology is a rethinking of ESL, basic, writing, and first-year composition.

Part 2, “Becoming a Writer,” opens with an excerpt from Elbow's (1973) Writing without teachers and closes with Olsen's examination of the postmodern critique of theory as it applies to the process movement in composition. In between is a piece on the special role ESL tutors play in helping nonnative speakers negotiate the sometimes hostile environment of the academy, as well as Liu's narrative of her struggle from “silence to words” (p. 173) and Friedland's exploration of an HIV-focused writing group. Although the editors achieve a multiplicity of voices in this section, they are too disparate. How exactly does the experience of a tutor working with college ESL students and a writing teacher who travels to a center to facilitate a writing workshop for people with AIDS constitute a rethinking of ESL, basic writing, and first-year composition?

Part 3, “Responding to Writing,” is the strongest, most coherent section of the anthology. From the opening line of the introduction, “The first moment of truth for most writing teachers comes when our students hand in assignment number one” (p. 243), the section maintains a consistency of purpose. Like part 1, this section navigates familiar terrain in L1 (Murray, Elbow) and L2 (Raimes) literature, but in this section the pieces by these writers and others truly become dialogic. Belanoff's “The Myths of Assessment” should be required reading for all graduate courses in assessment. Brooks's “Evaluating ESL Writing” brings clarity to the often troubling task of assessing the writing of nonnative writers. In the last piece in this section, “Fault Lines in the Contact Zone,” Miller tackles the problem of “unsolicited oppositional discourse” (p. 324) in the writing classroom. How do composition teachers respond to content that they find repugnant? Do they focus on correctness and neglect content? The section concludes where it began—with moments of truth.

The final part of the anthology, “Beyond the Writing Classroom,” suffers from the same problems as the first two sections. There are some excellent essays here and a range of topics (writing across the curriculum, working conditions for postsecondary writing teachers, the integration of technology in the writing curriculum, and community service), but the center does not hold.

I like the goal of this anthology, which is designed to be used as a text for courses on writing pedagogy. The questions posed at the end of each essay are thoughtful and prompt self-reflection and discussion, but the promise of a true dialogue on writing is not quite fulfilled.