In the piece "Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer" by Carol Berkenkotter, she begins by talking about Donald Murray and reliving a memory of seeing him write. Berkenkotter states how she came to realize that all writers have a unique process of writing, and that their settings are all different and should be paid close attention to. She begins a research study with Murray as her subject. Berkenkotter's purpose is to learn more about the planning and revising of professional, skilled writers. She describes her results and discusses Murray's own thoughts, writings, and troubles with his writings. She brings up the concept of "reconceiving" that Murray made, which is a collaboration between planning and revising.
In "Response of a Laboratory Rat--or, Being Protocoled" by Donald Murray, he uses a numbering system to organize his thoughts and ideas. He talks about typically the same ideas that Berkenkotter expressed, only in his own words and perspective (since it is coming from himself). He describes and relives his moments with Carol Berkenkotter as the writer and researcher who was observing him, and also motivating him.
Pre-reading:
- Consider whether you have any writing rituals. For example, do you have to have a cup of coffee while you write? Do you need to write on paper before typing? Do you have to take a nap or clean the house?
I don't really have any specific writing rituals. Usually, all I need is inspiration and I can type for the longest time, going on and on. I also need a relaxing place to write. It doesn't have to be completely quiet, though, because I can zone out and really focus on my writing.
Questions for Discussion and Journaling:
1. To me, it seemed that Murray had a lot of difficulty at times with his writing processes. It sounded very complicated. There were many different parts to the process and required a lot of time and effort. In my writing processes, I don't think nearly as much or plan and revise as much as Murray does or as Berkenkotter describes. I didn't realize that it required so much planning and revising.
5. Berkenkotter refers to Murray as "the writer" because that is exactly what he is. He is the writer that she is studying and using as part of her research study on cognitive writing processes. Murray refers to Berkenkotter as "the researcher" because she is conducting this specific research. Using their names wouldn't have the same effect on the audience as "writer" and "researcher" do. Using those terms allows the audience to get a strong sense on the roles Berkenkotter and Murray are playing and the purpose of the research study itself.
Meta Moment:
From the Berkenkotter and Murray readings, I learned that is important to put a lot of time and effort into the writing process and deeply think about. I can improve my writing and write more effectively if I use these concepts and spend time planning, and then revising afterward.
My thoughts:
I thought it was strange yet interesting that this work was basically two pieces of writing in one. It was definitely a unique method. I think it worked well, though, considering how Berkenkotter's "main character" in her article was Murray himself, and it was then followed by Murray's own piece. Her discussion of Murray's processes and his thoughts and ideas helped me to understand Murray's writing a little bit better. However, as far as Berkenkotter's article goes, it was kind of difficult to understand. It seemed to jump around a lot between her own thoughts and then Murray's writing and the concepts of planning and revising. It was unclear to me exactly what point she was trying to get across to the audience. I enjoyed reading Murray's piece because he explained his thoughts exactly and organized it well. It was easy to read and understand.
These articles compare to past articles we have read because the purpose is to inform the audience and help teach more complicated writing skills to improve writing and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment