Applying the Writing Process
As I was reading through the journal articles for this week’s discussion, it soon became clear that they were all connected through their exploration of the writing process. As I encountered the texts’ descriptions of the writing process, I certainly identified with many of them, especially on an abstract level. However, it was only as I sat down to write this blog post that I became painfully aware of exactly how I carried out my writing, what my own unique writing process is.
As Flower and Hayes contend in “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing,” and Faigley argues in “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal,” writing is not a linear process. At least, mine certainly isn’t. (My writing process goes something like this: write the word “TITLE” in all capital letters at the top of the page, stare at the page for a little while, type some ideas that I may or may not use later, loosely organize those ideas, type a sentence, erase it, type it again, erase it again, decide I need to start in the middle, write a sentence, erase it, decide to change my focus). After this exhausting exercise, I realize I still have nothing to show for it on the page. I think of the man mentioned in Flower and Hayes’ article, who had to write an article about his job as an English teacher for the magazine Seventeen and feel a kinship with him, because he also had trouble coming up with an opening sentence. Then I think of how I quietly defied my English teachers as a high school student, and wrote my rough drafts before my prewrites because I thought it was easier that way, and wonder if this has some kind of pedagogical significance. And then I eat some more Kit-Kats because that does not require much thinking at all.
Truthfully, I see writing as either a mechanical process or a vastly organic activity, much as Coleridge did: “Coleridge contrasted two kinds of form – one mechanical, when we impress upon any material a predetermined form, the other organic, when the material shapes itself from within. Coleridge also realized that the plant metaphor implied a kind of organic determinism. (Tulip bulbs cannot grow into daffodils). He avoided this consequence by insisting upon the free will of the artist, that the artist has foresight and the power of choice” (Faigley 530).
There are certainly writers who attempt to shape their material to rigidly-defined forms. These writers might begin with a standardized example of a business letter, for example, or a resume, and then strip that document of all of its details. Eventually, the writer adds in relevant details to flesh out the skeletal form. The problem with this kind of writing is that it underestimates the power of the form itself. Truly talented writers realize that the form is a flexible entity, and that altering certain aspects of the structure of a document is a powerful rhetorical tool. Changing the rhyming scheme of a poem, for instance, can entirely alter a reader’s interpretation of the poem. Various structures within a novel, too, can add to or detract meaning from the novel’s main themes. Changes in form are also important in business writing: it is significant if a writer chooses to add a “purpose” section to his or her resume, and it is equally significant if he or she does not.
In contrast, writers who conceive of writing as an organic activity are likely to view text as a living entity that “grows” in different directions but which can be “pruned.” This model accounts for the fact that writers often describe their text as “going in unplanned directions” (it doesn’t follow a linear path from the writer’s original goal to the end product), but which also allows the writers some control over the final product (the writer ultimately gets to choose which “branches” of thought get pruned away, which are given more attention: “cultivated,” and how they are organized).
Ultimately, my own writing process is organic – perhaps too organic, if such a thing is possible. My writing usually begins with an idea that I later discard completely. For example, originally this blog post was going to address how Slattery, Hart-Davidson, Spinuzzi, and Mark Zachry chose to focus on a sub-topic of the writing process, writing as a distributed activity. Two paragraphs in, I changed my mind, and ended up with this post instead. Perhaps that’s because I don’t prewrite properly?
Faigley, Lester. “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal.” College English 48.6. (1986): 527-542. PDF.
Flower, Linda and John R. Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32.4. (1981): 365-387. PDF.
Hart-Davidson, William, Clay Spinuzzi, and Mark Zachry. “Visualizing Writing Activity as Knowledge Work: Challenges & Opportunities.” ACM SIGDOC. (2006): 70-77. PDF.
Slattery, Shaun. “Undistributing Work Through Writing: How Technical Writers Manage Texts in Complex Information Environments.” Technical Communication Quarterly 16.3. (2007): 311-325. PDF.