Introduction to Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literature

The article Rhetoric by Susan C. Jarratt in our textbook (named in the title) is more than I can understand. If this is some one's idea of an "introduction" then we have different understandings about what an introduction actually is. It appears that the article is about the history of how rhetoric got started. She references many names, so many in fact that I got lost in the names. When I am reading a text I try to summarize every few paragraphs or so for my own notes and understanding. I was unable to summarize anything from Jarratt's article. I believe that using too many references in a paper does the opposite of show authority, especially in an "introductory" article. I get frustrated when I read something I can't understand, and Jarratt's article frustrated me.
Composition by David Bartholomae was easy by comparison to Jarrett, although it was not an easy read. The way the article is organized is in a more user-friendly way, and I found Bartholomae's voice was much more accessible. This might be because I understand composition. I teach high school composition all day every day. I have never had to teach anything about rhetoric... the word is seldom used in any of my teaching guides or teacher meetings. The research quoted by Bartholomae is tied in with anecdotes about the research, which makes it understandable, for me at any rate. Bartholomae's article taught me some interesting new ideas about writing. Jarratt's article made me feel stupid because I couldn't understand what points she was trying to make.