"Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer", written by Carol Berkenkotter, and "Response of a Laboratory Rat--or, Being Protocoled", written by Donald M. Murray deal with the struggle of planning material for writing and how thinking out loud, or "talk-around" protocol that could potentially leave to, at the least, written proof of how thought could be used as a strategy, or better yet, help reach a better understanding of how important planning is writing as a whole. As such, it could give potential writers (or academic members that seek theories on writing itself) this idea on how free-flowing revisions truly are, and as such, could be used to help solidify any kind of topic in hand, like when Donald Murray writes down a note--in paragraph 1 of page 223 of Writing About Writing--on how to better structure his point by using sub-plans as "putting in different order because that maybe be, try to emphasize this one," or "May want to put the techniques of editing and teaching first and the techniques of the writer second." Eventually, this reaches to the point where Donald himself comments on Carol's article, admitting that his protocol reveled, maybe a little too much on his part, how intriguing his work habits are in a boarder scope, returning to Berkenkotter's point that evaluation of one's circumstances on his writings--the revisions, the setting, his way of thinking--play a big part in the final writings as a whole.
Because of this need to be conscious about one's writing style, the articles in this Reading Response relate to Sarah Allen's article "The Inspired Writer vs. The Real Writer", where she admits to her audience that she has this unconscious drive--a battle of sorts--against the writer inside her own head and reality she truly feels about writing (in other words, she has a hard time to reach to her central right away, and it's something that still eludes her to this day). To Allen, it's all about emotional frustration that will eventually be lifted from her work being previews of the peer reviewing sort, while Berkenkotter believes the solution really lies in personal evaluation of one's work. In other words, both aim to find solutions for writers to reach their point more effectively, but at same time, suggest different ways to find that point, with Allen more of the side of pro-communications and Berkenkotter on a more personal process.
Now let's talk about me; does thinking out loud benefit me? Is that concept a writing ritual within me? Well, in regards to personal satisfaction, I certainly like to think so. What about the music I sometime play as something for my brain to listen to while it similarly think about concepts that it has to mull over? That could be another ritual if one wants to look at it that way. What about events before writing? There's maybe taking care of one subject at a time, and after it's all done, I might just sit around for a bit and let my brain rest to gear itself for the next subject at hand. So to answer the question of benefaction on my writing, I can see a couple, maybe even more if those haven't stick out the most.
Question for Discussion and Journaling
Now, going by my own judgment of Murray's writing, I get the impression that he writes down ideas that comes to him. Once the idea is all written on paper, he then thinks about it, even speaking out loud to himself, and sees if he can try to sharper the point; maybe the syntax of one sentence isn't clear, or he might of extended a paragraph that could of benefited from being two sentences instead of five. Satisfied, he would then think about revisions about think in a more rhetorical mindset than he did in previous drafts and plan out text that could fit his body of work for better evaluation for himself and his self-conscious audience.
Compared to me, similarities do arises; I would spent time thinking about whatever it is I read, then once I have a good idea of what it is that fascinates me in the first place, I would write it down as it appear inside my mind. Once finished, I would then evaluate my writings and see if I'm truly satisfied with the idea, and if I'm not, I'll post it anyway and hope revisions come when I continue, instead of letting my brain stopping me until the text beforehand is one hundred percent perfect. The only difference worth nothing is that Murray writes down an idea and then revisits the wording to better suit his true opinion, while I find myself being mostly satisfied with my validity in writing and hope whoever it is who read it understands where I come from and goes along with the material. If not, then the fault lies with my ignorance, myself, and nothing else.
As for Berkenkotter, I suspect that she learned that planning itself requires planning; sub-processes needed for better revisiting. Even so, she finds herself that the way the writers organizes the way writers take to the material, how they edit their material, plays an important part in the final text, and as such, hopes that researchers forgo a notion. That notion is that the materiel itself matters, but rather, approaches and tools a writer like Murray uses that can carry upon the complexity of the text. You will hear no argument from that on that sentimental.
Thinking about it, that lies a problem with my writing: I don't seek to make sense out of material I'm given, but rather, I want to use the material to arrive at a destination that brings me honest satisfaction; something to be proud of. As such, when I write, I prefer to take my time and allow myself to let a part of me I'm not aware of think about it, and when it's happy with the results, I type it up and move on before any part of me starts having second thoughts and could alter the text into something I'm still not satisfied with. The result? Just writing that has thousands of ideas and hopes that it gets across to someone who shares such ideas. Not the ideas themselves, but rather, the character that surrounds the writing. Because of that, my writing might seem crude to some, thus, placing amateur writers like mine under, well, amateurs; a level where I'm getting the ideas, but have trouble on how I should express such ideas. Honestly, if there is a way to disguise my writing into a style that can be analyzed long after I'm gone, proof that someone like me can do something for this world, where loneliness can eventually be overcome, only then will I be...satisfied.
Therefore, I did learn something from Berkenkotter and Murray that can help my writing. It's not the material/introspection that writers like myself fumble over, it's trying to express that material, small cracks of our thoughts, in a way that can be fascinating to ourselves that usually worry writers. Revisiting should not be seen as something that will alter the text into concept the writers wishes to ignore, but instead can hone in into ideas that can be formed into something much greater than the writer himself has ever thought of.
So, what's left to be said? These article bring upon a subject that trouble writers such as myself, and I'm thankful that I now know it's a subject that's worth thinking about. Hopefully, this is material I find myself coming back to in the future, and if I find myself in the same spot as I am now, then it's not the writing that should be blamed, it's me.
No comments:
Post a Comment