Berkenkotter and Murray IWA

In reflecting on this particular reading assignment, I have noticed several important things, one being there is no specific way to measure one’s creativity and potential by a set plan. There are only ways to evaluate the processes in which each of us write and perhaps measure our productivity in a set amount of time. However, we must be cautious in how we measure productivity because as we’ve learned from Carol Berkenkotter, writers like Donald Murray spend a large amount of time in the planning and incubation stages. Therefore, if an author has not reached the end of planning and incubation, how then can we measure how far they’ve come? This leads me to our first question of discussion and journaling.

            My impresson of Murray’s writing processes were first of envy; how nice it must be to have someone to dictate to! I agree with his statement of the freedom he must have, especially with non-fiction to allow a more natural flow (233). Secondly, my process of planning by thinking and noting before officially writing is similar to his. Sometimes I will spend days processing ideas before typing the first word, which I do not think is uncommon. For this reason, I find standardized testing on creative people to be flawed. A writer that begins writing immediately upon a prompt can succeed in the situation, however, a person who spends the majority of their time thinking and incubating upon subjects don’t have the same advantage. Murray also said he did much better in his process when he could read his work aloud (220). Many creative people prefer to do this; specifically poets. There is no reading aloud during standardized testing unless the test taker has a reading disability. I find very large similarities in Berkenkotter’s experiment with Murray to the situational demands of the GRE.

            Murray also experienced the differences in being in a familiar place and a controlled environment in which he was not comfortable.  Immediately I thought of writers such as Emily Dickinson and Sylvia Plath that worked in very specific conditions and spaces in order to produce a certain outcome; one that they both could not find elsewhere. I also struggle with being able to produce what I find to be quality work in new or even tidy workspaces.  I feel all of these elements play a very big part in planning and developing ideas (revising).

            Bekenkotter’s understanding of writing processes changed because of her ability to see three specific things she hadn’t considered in her original plan: that calculating a writer’s mental processing is not completely possible, a writer moves back and forth between all stages therefore time limitations and gauging are difficult, and we cannot underestimate word and memory association. For instance, When Murray would revise specific sections he would go over the relationship words had with one another and how the sum of sentence added up to his individual memory. The specific addition of “listens” to his sentence about short conferences and teachers allows us to understand that he associates precise with the act of listening, therefore may recall not be listened to and it lasting forever. Also, he revises his title by shaving in the mirror and relating the first time he shaved to his new title “Teaching the other self: the writer’s first reader” (226).  Memory and word association go hand in hand, therefore, it cannot be determined how one writer will link a thought or phrase to a specific set of ideas.  This is probably the reason that his letter to an eleven-year old about death was very short and to the point from an outside perspective; because he had no memory to link creative thoughts and words to that were age appropriate.

            This is not uncommon with writers. The one phrase you learn first off in any creative writing setting is to “write what you know.” Writers often have the inability to accurately describe situations they have not experienced or researched adequately.  I struggle with this venturing out of what I know and sometimes assume that the reader knows exactly the situation I am writing bout. This allows for my revision process to have underdeveloped ideas that cannot stand alone without memory association. Because I do not spend the same amount of time on revising that I do processing and planning, I would categorize myself as a very lop-sided study, extremely heavy on planning and editing and not enough time spent on revising unless the circumstance requires deep analysis. My idea of how I spend my time writing, though, might be completely erroneous as was Murray’s.

            I have learned from Berkenkotter’s study of Murray’s writing processes that all writers do not process the same. What works for one writer may not work at all for another. I may think I am much farther behind in production, when in actuality, I am right on course because what I need more time for I grant freely. I have also learned to try new tecniques; to read pieces aloud, create aloud and let someone else document it, but most importantly, allow myself to revisit what I know needs more work. I will associate things with memories and similar ideas more often to come to the perfect fit of words for myself and my audience. However, revision is more important than I give it credit for.