I doubt that Brian Corless’s book (Formal English, ANU Press, 148 pp, $3.95) will sell quite as well. There has been no attempt to disguise it as a ‘trendy’ text; it is purely a formal grammar text. It will be interesting to see if teachers decide they need this too – in spite of any adverse reviews. Many teachers may echo the Emperor Sigismund’s words: ‘I am the Roman Emperor, I am above grammar’. But they may decide that their students are not. As Corless says, his book is for those who, unlike the Emperor, are prepared to accept the guidance of standard forms of expression.

Brian Hoepper’s The City (Holt Saunders, 112 pp) seems to me like most of Holt Saunders English publications, a little too late for the market, which is synonymous with a little too late for the teacher. It is a nicely presented thematic text – a little better (and no worse) than the thematic texts of the late sixties and early seventies.

It has become increasingly popular among the theoretical heavies in education to decry the ‘back to basics’ movement, which they imagine has taken place over the last few years. I suspect they do this to justify their particular current theories – and often to justify their occupations. Even a cursory look at the English texts which have sold well over the past ten years should have convinced them that most teachers never really moved away from the basics. I can’t accept the proposition that teachers buy books because of heavy promotional tactics; this implies thar my colleagues have little professional judgement. Teachers buy books because they feel these books will help their teaching.

The English texts that have been published during the 1970s have embraced various current theories, often successfully. But theories come and go, and the resultant texts don’t live on forever. Many teachers took the thematic texts of the early 1970s seriously – and compilations like Themes and Responses, Sandals in One Hand, Action and Reactions, Your Move are still used in some schools. This doesn’t mean that those texts weren’t meant to be taken seriously; I’m sure most of them were. But these books were only the icing on the cake. Although the icing was thick, it soon melted. Perhaps we’ll see a different icing recipe soon – but the cake mixture has remained basic.

The staying power of texts like Mastering Words and English Today is not too difficult to understand. Most teachers of English seem to believe students need skills; that is, of course, not to suggest they need nothing else. Without these acquired skills students couldn’t begin to appreciate language and literature, or to create it.

As a text book writer, I find the attitudes of many academics and theorists amusing. Some years ago, I was co-author of a thematic text, and was criticised roundly by many for including no skills in the book. A few years ago, I wrote a fairly basic English text, full of skill acquisition work and exercises. This time I was criticised for not including literature, poetry etc – often by the same critics. I enjoy these criticisms; they say so much about the critics, and are all grist to the writer’s mill. Many text book writers take their work awfully seriously; this, I think, is a mistake. I see most texts as a response to a current educational trend, or an external examination. No more, no less. Successful publishers know this, while the theorists carp and search vainly for newer theories to justify their existence.

A very good teacher needs no text, but could probably teach from any at random if necessary. Once goals are set – and the principal one might be the total language development of the student – there are various valid methods of attaining them. To paraphrase Montaigne, ‘the arrival matters, not the journey’. There will always be critics of other’s journeys, and so this should be. It makes us question our methods and values, and this is healthy.

Meanwhile, back in the classroom, Language One, Language Two, Mastering Words and English Today are widely used. I doubt students suffer much. Recently an English skills book was advertised in Idiom, and one response was that it was like advertising thalidomide in the journal of the AMA. To take ourselves as seriously as that seems to me dangerously unhealthy. There is a curious morality abroad among some theorists that has occasioned an interesting political swing; yesterday’s ‘trendies’ have become today’s reactionaries, and would even stoop to censoring texts which aren’t a response to current dogma if they could. Thankfully, the breed is dying out a little. They are beginning to see that the child matters, and his/her relationship with the teacher, and the hopeful attainment of various educational goals – not the text used. As a profession, most of us seem to be becoming more tolerant of method which differ from ours.

I await the next wave of experts who know all the answers with interest. I’m just beginning to understand some of the questions, and the publisher’s responses to them.