Berkenkotter and Murray Reading Response

Summary

In Carol Berkenkotter’s article “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer,” she attempts to explore the writing process (setting, tasks, etc.) of a writer in a “naturalistic” (219) manner rather than a laboratory setting. According to Berkenkotter, the laboratory setting is so different from a writer’s regular setting that it drastically alters and affects the writer’s composition process. In other words, in order to most authentically and usefully explore writers’ processes, it would be most helpful to observe them in their natural setting, which the laboratory inhibits. Donald M. Murray’s article is his response as a subject of the study. Among the revelations the study brought Murray include the feeling of performance that the one-hour protocol instilled (pointing again to the inadequacies of studying the composition process clinically rather than naturally) as well as an understanding of the importance of planning and introspection before and during the writing process. 

Synthesis

Berkenkotter’s article exemplifies John Swales’s method for creating a research space by establishing a niche (exploration and study of how writers revise) as well as attempting to occupy that niche by indicating a problem with or failing of current research (laboratory inadequately replicates a writer’s setting) (Swale 7-8). Similarly, readers can detect Stuart Greene’s “framing” concept from his article “Argument as Conversation” (Greene 14). Berkenkotter frames her discussion and subsequent exploration of the revision process for writers with Janet Emig’s criticism of the “context stripping” that occurs in most research about writing processes (218).   The framework, then, for Berkenkotter’s article is the inadequacy of research based upon the observation of writers in an inauthentic space, which has hitherto been used to study the way writers compose. In response, Berkenkotter offers a new methodology to analyze and study a writer’s composition process within a “naturalistic” space. It is also important to note that Berkenkotter’s study specifically focuses on a skilled, successful writer, Donald M. Murray, rather than an unskilled writer, as in Sondra Perl’s article. Thus, rather than learning from what less skilled writers do incorrectly or insufficiently, Berkenkotter furthers a method of learning based upon what successful writers do successfully and teaching students to focus on what to do rather than what not to do.

Pre-writing Exercise

            The writing process for me does not come easily or naturally, something I am quickly learning is actually quite common with even successful professional writers. In general, I write only when I have to, and I wait as long as I possibly can to begin the actual typing on the computer. I usually spend a lot of time researching first, but this varies based upon how much difficulty I’m having coming up with a thesis/argument. Sometimes I have a clear thesis in my head the whole time I read something. At other times, I waste a ton of time reading articles and books that I know I most likely won’t end up using, just on the off chance that I’ll read something that will spark my brain. When I’ve finished all the procrastinating and pre-planning, I prefer to write things out on paper first. However, I am also impatient with this and after I write out an (bad) introduction, I usually end up just switching over to the laptop. I also take a lot of breaks and naps while writing. 

QD 1

            Donald Murray has a much more intricate and professional strategy for his writing. His time certainly isn’t wasted on hours reading tumblr and watching Netflix. One of the things that struck me was that he dictates his notes to his wife. Since I am impatient, it initially seemed tedious to me because this strategy means that he is reading his drafts aloud, having them typed up, and then, once again, reading them aloud. However, I also see the benefits of collaboration with this process, or, at least, the benefits of forcing his mind to consider an audience and how his words sound to others.  I often read some of my sentences out loud if I am unsure of logic or phrasing, but I never read the whole thing out loud. Like Murray, I also believe I spend most of the process planning. Initially I thought that I spent a lot of time editing and revising, but the more I think about it, I also believe that the order of time spent on the categories of the writing process agree with Murray’s: Planning, Evaluation, Editing, and Revising. I find it hard to distinguish between these categories completely, but I feel that I am almost constantly evaluating my writing. I was also pleased to read about Murray’s introspection and the fact that some of his ideas were born when he was not officially working, such as while he was shaving or in the instances of, to use Murray’s own words, “bathroom epiphanies.” 

QD 3

            The study led Berkenkotter to some important revelations in regard to planning and revising. She found that the most time was spent on steps related to planning, but her biggest surprise was that the least amount of time was spent revising. Not only was the least amount of time spent on the revision process, but it was also significantly lower than planning, evaluating, and editing. She seemed to have discovered that it was incredibly hard to distinguish between the processes, especially because the steps often overlapped or lead to the other steps. For instance, when Murray edited, it often led to planning. Berkenkotter found that planning and revising overlapped, which led to her discussion of the concept of reconceiving, or major revision. If reconceiving means approaching the text from the perspective of an outside reader, it could also be considered evaluation. Although these steps overlap- Berkenkotter describes how the steps work together as a “network” wherein the writer moves back and forth between the different steps- the overall thread among all of the steps seems to be bearing the audience in mind.  Murray was constantly aware of his audience and, as Berkenkotter points out, “his most substantive changes, what he calls ‘internal revision,’ occurred as he turned his thoughts toward his audience” (228). 

AE 

            I would consider myself an average writer, meaning that I have average skill. While I wouldn’t say I am unskilled, like the students in Sondra Perl’s article, I certainly have a lot of weak areas in my composition process. I believe I spend too much time pre-planning without first revising i.e. developing my ideas. Both Berkenkotter’s article and Murray’s response provided many insights, but perhaps the most significant points were those on revision as a step. One of the biggest differences I find between Murray’s skilled writing and mine is that he does not seem to need revision; he has his ideas already. He knows what he wants to say, he just needs to plan how he will say it. In other words, he is a skilled writer because he can focus on his rhetorical presentation rather than his ideas, whereas a less skilled writer like myself must still spend most of the time developing ideas.  

MM

     While I think I probably also spend the least time revising out of the four steps, I spend a great deal more time revising than Murray did. I think that if I improve my writing, I will also be able to decrease the amount of time I need to develop my ideas. On a related note, I also think the number of drafts Murray develops is a significant factor. The more drafts he writes, the more familiar the ideas become, so he doesn’t need to spend more time developing them even as he continues to develop his rhetorical presentation. On the other hand, I usually only write two drafts (one rough and one final) and edit once before I have to submit. While my paper may be adequate, if I spent more time planning and reconceiving, my ideas would be stronger as well as better articulated.