Murray-2

1. What was your impression of Murray's writing processes as they're described here? How do they compare to yours? What do you do the same of differently?
3. How did this study change Berkentrotter's understanding of writing processes, particularly planning and revision?
4. What problems with existing methods for studying writing process does Berkentrotter identify? If you read Pearl, did you notice any of these problems in her methods? What do you think they might mean for Pearl's findings? In what ways is Berkentrotter's newer approach to studying writing processes able to solve the weaknesses in other's names, since the audience knows them anyway?

1.I really thought his process was too much. He takes a lot of notes and does too much editing and revising his work.  I don't do a lot of editing. I usually just reread my paper and fix mistakes and add stuff as I go. I do make some revising changes, I'm not as thorough as Murray though.

3. Berkenkotter's study showed that you needed more time to do the planning and revisions than really necessary to complete those tasks. Revisions may take as long as possible to create a paper.

4. The time management with the revising and editing process. Berkenkotter addressed the problems people have with editing. He says that you should do more editing than actually writing the paper. Weaknesses still do remain because not everyone is going to take the approach. 

Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer and Response of a Laboratory Rat or Being Protocoled QDJ 1,2,3, and 4

1.What was your impression of Murray's writing processes as they're described here? How do they compare to yours? What do you do the same or differently?
3. How did this study change Berkenkotter's understanding of writing processes, particularity planning and revision?
4.What problems with existing methods for studying writing process does Berkenkotter identify? If you read Perl, did you notice any of these problems in her methods? What do you think they might mean for Perl's findings? In what ways is Berkenkotter's newer approach to studying writing processes able to solve the weaknesses in other methods? Do any weaknesses remain?

1.I really thought his process was too much. He takes a lot of notes and does too much editing and revising his work.  I don't do a lot of editing. I usually just reread my paper and fix mistakes and add stuff as I go. I do make some revising changes, I'm not as thorough as Murray though.

3. Berkenkotter's study showed that you needed more time to do the planning and revisions than really necessary to complete those tasks. Revisions may take as long as possible to create a paper.

4. The time management with the revising and editing process. Berkenkotter addressed the problems people have with editing. He says that you should do more editing than actually writing the paper. Weaknesses still do remain because not everyone is going to take the approach. 

My Specific Writing Process

My writing process is actually very simple. Most people have a very complex writing style, but I write what I feel. I start off by finding a nice comfortable place to plan out everything. I usually write at Starbucks here on campus. I love the atmosphere and having people around me while I write. I start of by making an outline. In my outline I write the topic at the very top of the paper so I don’t get confused or forget what my point is. After writing down the topic I proceed to outline my paper in chronological order. I do it in order so that if I want to start on a different section first I’ll know where it goes. It usually takes me 30 minutes to an hour to write my outline. I don't write my outline and then write my paper. I write start on my paper the day after I write my outline. On the dirty draft I just free write. I really don't go back and correct mistake after I finish. I write the dirty draft just to see how my paper will look like. I don't change things because I’ll do all the in the first draft. When I write the first draft I try not to make a lot of mistakes so I won't have to do a lot in my second. In my second draft is where I usually add my new ideas in. I do a lot of corrections and change some things. By the second draft my paper is usually completely different. After I’m done with the second draft I’m happy with my paper and ready to turn in the final product. When I’m writing my final paper I like to proofread after every paragraph, this cuts down editing time. Sometimes while I’m doing my final editing I do tend to add new stuff. I don’t do this too much because I don’t want to take the attention off the main topic of that paragraph. I takes me about a week to write my whole paper, sometimes longer. It depends on the length of the paper to determine how long it will take me to write it. That’s pretty much it, like I said my process is very simple.

Writing Process of Famous Author

OF COURSE I have to write about R.L Stine. He is my favorite author and his writing process is quite simple. He says most of his stories are completely from his imagination. Of course none were inspired from real events. He likes to sit and think about the plot of the story first then go from there. All of his “Fear Street” books are written around this one town called Shadyside or a street called Fear Street and its terrifying history. He says that sometimes he does run out of ideas or his ideas are similar to another book. He said when he thinks he has an idea that is similar to one of his other books he tries to think of a really good plot twist. I've noticed this in a few of his books. I’ll be reading one and think that its the same as one I've read before, but a few chapters in I realize that its even better. He outlines everything first. Most of his characters have really basic names like Lee, Ali, or John. He says its easier to have basic names than to have big names. He can give them a better personality that way. When he outlines he writes the plot down first. After he writes the plot he names all the characters. Once he names everyone he writes down their role in the story. By roles I mean the main character telling the story or the main one being effected. He writes down the murderer or whoever did what in the story. He says this way he doesn't get any characters mixed up. He then proceeds to write out the rest of the story. He said it doesn't take him long to write one “Fear Street” book, but it takes long enough. He wants his readers to have something different every time in a “Fear Street” or “Goosebumps” novel. I really like his writing style and I can relate to some of the things he does.

Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers

1. Sommers says that the language students use to describe revision is about vocabulary, suggesting that they "understand the revision process as a rewording activity" How is it different from the way she argues that revision should be understood?
3. In her introduction and in analyzing students' descriptions of revision, Sommers focuses quite a lot on the difference between speech and writing. In your own words what is she saying that difference is between the two, and why is this difference relevant to how we understand revision?
5. What do you think Sommers means when she says that for experienced writers, revision is based on a non-linear theory in which a sense of the whole writing both precedes and grows out of an examination of the parts? What does she mean by "the whole writing"? What does it mean for writing processes to be non-linear (not a straight line of progress from beginning to end)? And why do you think that experienced writers see writing as non-linear but student writers tend to see writing as linear?
7. Does this match what you have been taught about writing and revising?

1. Sommers says that the students tend to revise by asking themselves can they find a better word or phrase, a more impressive, and are they repeating the same word or phrases too often. She also says students should use a thesaurus.

3. To me you write the way you speak. If you speak a certain way you're going to write a certain way. I think that the more you write the better your vocabulary gets.

5. Because sometimes when people write they just put down the first thing that comes to mind. They start getting off topic and lose the reader. People get so lost in their writing that they are just all over the place with the topic.

7. I think revising is the most important part of writing. If you don't revise your paper then there really was no reason to write it in the first place.

Would I change my literacy narrative?

I really do not think I would change much about my paper. My paper explained pretty much all I could remember about my reading and writing journey. The only thing I would change is me being able to remember more stuff. I know a lot of people influenced me to read and write. I thought my paper was well thought out and organized. I tried to keep everything in chronological order. I started off with my earliest memory and ended with my most recent one. After reading it over a few times I saw that I could have used a little more detail. I tried to use as much as possible. I really wanted the reader to smell the smells and feel the textures like I did. I don't know why, but I wish we could have used pictures. To me pictures really get the point across. I would have used pictures of R.L Stine’s books because a lot of people don't know what they look like. I don't think I would've changed my writing process. I outlined everything first and then I let that be the foundation to my paper. In my outline I put everything in order and made sure it was where I wanted. My paper followed my outline very well. I did change a few things. I took out some things that I thought weren't as relevant as others. I tried to name all my main literacy sponsors. By main I mean the ones that had the most impact. I really hope who ever reads my paper enjoys it. It really does show my literary journey. Of course I kept my own personal copy. I think this paper will be useful in the near future. It will always be here to remind me of how I started. I might have to write a paper similar to that, but more in depth. My next paper will be even better than my last. I figured out the type of writing style that I like. I will use the methods I used on this paper on my

Writing What Matters: A Student's Struggle to Bridge the Academic/Personal Divide QDJ 1,2,3

1. Strasser writes that "The devices of grammar and rhetoric remain superficial skills until a writer employs them to express important and powerful feelings, thoughts, and ideas" Why? And do you agree?
2. What seems to be at issue for Strasser is creating "personally meaningful writing"  in response to school assignments. Is there actually anything in Stanley Fish's advocacy of a writing course that teaches reasoning which would seem to rule out such personally meaningful writing? In other words is Strasser right to assume the Fish's insistence on writing in order to exercise one's grammar will actually lead to meaningless writing?
3. In your experience, does school create a separation of mind, body, and spirit that Strasser quotes bell hooks as identifying?

1. I agree with Strasser about what she says because without grammar it would be confusing and you wouldn't understand what the writer was trying to say. If we didn't have sentence structure wouldn't understand what people were saying.
2.  To mean meaningful writing is different from something assigned.  You can't really be meaningful to something you didnt think of yourself.  I think that in Stanley Fish’s advocacy of a writing course that teaches reasoning there is a lot things that don't say anything about meaningful writing. 
3. Yes it does. In certain subjects you use more of the other.