Lynch 1

John Lynch

Steffen Guenzel

ENC-1101

November 17, 2017

The Process of Writing

When it comes to the world of writing, every author is unique in the many aspects of

translating their thoughts to written form. As the likes of Donald Murray said in All Writing is

Autobiographical, "All my writing and yours is autobiographical," every person's writing

serves as a momentary glimpse into their life; be it not just the content they forward in discourse,

but through other elements (such as their motivation, interaction with the community, other

works they reference to on an intertextual level, etc.) they personally address in a given situation.

It's because of this that every writer that has existed holds their own fingerprint to mark their

work as their own. Yet, what about the process that each author goes through to create their

work? Without a doubt, it is assured that each and every author has a procedure to writing just as,

if not more, unique than the footprint they leave behind as they write. Observing this process

however has shown to be no easy feat. When observing only the process that an author enrolls in

while facing revisions, the same Donald Murray, serving as a test subject, stated in Response of a

Laboratory Rator, Being Protocoled that "The one hour protocol was far worse than I had

expected. If I had done that first there would have been no other protocols. I have rarely felt so

completely trapped and so inadequate" (846). With such a criticism of the observation, it shows

just how great the variety of rules and procedures one may adhere to while writing are.

Therefore, with this paper I wish to find my fingerprint. Looking at my own procedure of writing
 Lynch 2

and the elements that go into it I would like to find what goes into the voice I speak through as I

write.

Outlining is often the first step many people will say they take when they write, and for

good reason. After brainstorming for ideas, the most important thing I can think to do when

trying to write is first figure out the whos, whats, whens, and whys of what theyre writing

about. Almost anyone would agree that the primary aspect of outlining a paper is to first and

foremost condense and consolidate all of your ideas into one place. Regardless of whether all, or

just as easily if any, ideas end up being utilized, having my points and research listed out in such

a way helps with overcoming that first hurdle of writing: feeling that I have too much to say.

With this being said, it feels relevant to comment on the coordination, or lack thereof, when it

comes to my handling of this process. Outline is a term I feel should be used rather loosely when

taking a look at the mess of notes. Often these notes will appear in a mess of scribbled paper

lacking any type of organization. So when it comes to the first step I take towards completing a

piece of writing, I try to make it a primary focus on putting as much ideas into a single place as

possible. Slowly sectioning them about by relevancy to the topic at hand, then narrowing them

down into a list thats containable within given essay.

Looking at an authors finished piece, its difficult to tell the order in which that author

brought his ideas to the page, in other words where their writing began. To me writing is

anything but a linear process. Many people I know would like to equate writing a paper to that of

constructing a building, but I see that as almost disingenuous to the process itself. It implies that

during the transition from outline to draft, a good paper is determined by who starts with the best

introduction; if we were to use the building analogy, creating a strong foundation for said

building would be mentioned here. While this idea isnt wrong by inheritance, I dont think it is
 Lynch 3

the formally correct way to construct a paper. When I think about the way in which I translate

the discordant scribbling I call my outline into something actually legible, I find myself rarely

using my introduction as a starting point. If anything, I find that the introduction is often the last

place Ill ever work on in my paper. Starting my paper often by creating my main points, I then

spend time fine-tuning my both my conclusion, then introduction around the intermediate

content Ive written. In the end I feel this helps me miss creating both an introduction and

conclusion that excludes any important points.

After trudging through the dissonant process of sifting through my web of notes and

scribbles, I eventually find myself face-to-face with something more akin to that of a first draft.

With this being said, the sloppy nature of which I got about this has always brought a

comparison between my process and that of drunken fist. Known formally as Zui Quan, the

sloppy, momentum-based movements used in this style of Chinese martial arts eerily mirror the

way in which I write. Of course, the obvious comparison of an outwards sloppy appearance

could be made, but looking past that more similarities come up. Being based primarily off of the

users momentum, a user of Zui Quan needs to base themselves on a center point to perform

these moves. Looking back at my own way I write, I found that a common similarity between

many of the pieces I write is the way in which I first create my central argument. After finding

the message I want to express with my work, I then use the flood of ideas as a moment to finally

begin pushing myself into the midst of what finally begins to constitute a paper. Stringing

together each point in order to create the necessary flow to a piece.

Recursion is an interesting concept to think about. Defined by the Merriam-Webster

dictionary as the determination of a succession of elements (such as numbers or functions) by

operation on one or more preceding elements according to a rule or formula involving a finite
 Lynch 4

number of steps, recursion is a concept of thinking iteratively towards a solution. Continuing

until a set condition is met, the steps are often ways of dividing up a large problem into smaller

sections until its handled in a divide and conquer methodology. More or less, this practice is

often seen in fields that require iterative processes like programming, a field that Ive hand a

good amount of experience with. Because of my background in this iterative process, it seems as

though one tool Ive acquired from my discourse community in programming is that of

recursive revising. I wouldnt classify this way of revising as anything unique to that of what

would be considered normal revising practices. Rather, just a way of ordering how I go about

revising my paper itself. Following its idea of dividing and sectioning off, I tend to start with

individual paragraphs, moving deeper into individual sentences if I feel my personal standard is

not satisfied.

With each level of recursion in the process of revision, eventually there comes a point

when an author finds satisfaction in their work. Often it seems as though being satisfied would

be better replaced with the willingness to compromise. To be frank, writing papers that one

would be satisfied with often appears as a wild goose chase. This halt in the process often

happens during revising, as I will further call mid-development hell. There comes a point

where it seems as though every idea you want to add wont work; not even the original ones you

start with begin to feel adequate enough for what you wish your final product to be. You begin to

notice every single little flaw you once glossed over blissfully in the initial drafting stage now

needs to be addressed. From there the chain of dominoes begins to fall over as attempting to fix

any of the issues only results in more problems, with the only solution being to give up and start

over. The dread of having to start from scratch and rewrite your whole paper hanging over you

like your own personal sword of Damocles. But its here that the most pivotal part of my process
 Lynch 5

of writing happens. Here the choice of not ignoring, but acknowledging your papers flaws in

order to find a way to fix them presents itself; and while it may be no easy choice to make, biting

the bullet and sticking with your paper to end not only makes the finished project worth it, but

you also end up learning more about yourself as a writer. About the pitfalls you need to avoid the

next time your put your thoughts to written form. In the most callback-y way imaginable, your

flaws in your work can yet again serve as a means of dating your progress as a writer, almost

autobiographical if you will.

As Murray suggested in his work that all writing is autobiographical, why shouldnt we

believe that the same could be said in terms of the process that we create our writing? When

looking at ones own procedures of creating a written work, we can see elements of the same

influences one subtly exhibits in their finished product. Be it through our personal experiences or

our tools we acquire as we interact with our discourse communities, the process we all

facilitate as writers leaves each of us with our own individual fingerprint. For me, in the way that

I discordantly compile all the semi-related knowledge I have on a subject into a conglomerate

mess then refine it towards a polished turd - or shitty first draft if you will. Using the idea of

recursion I acquired from other areas of my life to then act as a filter to strain out all my filler

until Im left with something I deem satisfactory. Ive found that my own fingerprint of a writing

process shows many of the aspects of my life that are also reflected in my end product.