Murray’s insight was very interesting. Usually, animals are experimented on, not humans. So having the insight of a lab rat was unique to see. Murray wasn’t asked to do anything too complicated, nor was he being held for a long time. And yet, he had a difficult time being stuck in a room for an hour writing. When we are forced to think about the things we do naturally, it can be very difficult. Murray proved that, by having a very difficult time writing even though writing is something he has done often. No one really thinks about the writing process they have, they just write.
Everyone has a different style of writing, yet no one really knows what their style is. That is amazing to think about, considering how often we write things. Trying to analyze it, and figure out what the style is, forces us to write in an unnatural way. All these experiments to find the writing process don’t work cause they force the writer to do things that aren’t natural to them. Reading how uncomfortable Murray was proves how difficult studying the writing process is. It is really cool to see this kind of perspective, of someone who had to be the lab rat. It was interesting to read how Murray was feeling about everything that was going on, especially as that defeats the whole experiment. It makes it unnatural and uncomfortable, and that isn’t how Murray usually writes. It also gives an insight into how the animals might feel being experimented on, though we will never really know. It was a perspective we never got before, and it was super intriguing to read.
I think some things about the writing process happens with everyone, though it is hard to prove that. I think everyone does revisions as they go. If someone was tasked with no backspacing, there would be so many errors the piece might not be readable. If people couldn’t change sentences to write ones that sound better, the paper might be hard to follow. I think that if people don’t revise as they go, it would be very difficult to make a good paper. This goes with Berkenkotter’s idea that writing isn’t linear. I can’t prove how true that is, as I think it happens a lot without thinking. If someone was tasked to do it, it would be very hard as the thought (I can’t go back) would be in their mind and could ruin their writing. It would also mess with the flow of thought. That doesn’t sound true. How can not going back mess with the flow? Wouldn’t plowing on make thoughts flow more? I don’t think so. I think people backtrack when they realize things aren’t being said how they intended. I think it happens even while talking. People starting to say the wrong word, telling a story out of order and going back to give more context, normal slip-ups like saying a word wrong, and more all happen while speaking. The same goes for writing. You start writing a sentence, realize you need more context, maybe jump the gun because you can’t type as quickly as you think and write the end of the sentence without writing the beginning, type the wrong spelling for a word, and more. I think it is natural to go back and get the correct thought going. Going on might cause confusion and lead you down a path you didn’t intend. Again, this is hard to prove as once you study someone’s writing it isn’t natural. However, I feel writing is something we all do in a nonlinear way without fully realizing it. It might not be a big backtrack, but we all do some backtracking in order to head in the right direction.
Leave a Reply