However, I guess that the bottom line is ... Why are you 'interested' in
this project concerning freewriting or prewriting or the process
(processES)? I'm not sure that I understand Why. It would be important to
know Why. If it's for knowledge, I would be very careful. I knew shortly
after being an 'object' of study Why F&H wanted to do what they did _at
that point in time_. "Efficiency" was the tacitly present purpose! The
goal was efficiency in writing, in teaching w/riting. And in consuming
documents. Ideologically, I have always been against such a notion of
managing the writing processES. (Etc.) Which can be, Yes, rather
idiocyncratic for many people and at times for all of us.
Another point, as someone already said: There is a large body of
literature on this suggested project already available. Probably many of
you know this. I would second the previous suggestion that it be
carefully considered. There is a political reason for my suggesting that
homework be done and previous work be openly acknowledged! What might
that be?
Victor
On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Jeffrey R Galin wrote:
> Beth wrote that we should be practicing what we preach more
> directly. I'm not so sure I agree, and this is why: Back in the
> eighties, Linda Flower and partners did a great deal of work to uncover
> how experts write to discover a system of apprenticeship for novice
> writers. While I understood the drive to do such work, I find it hightly
> problematic. When it come down to it, just about no one learns to do
> anything like experts do it. The fact that we are supposed to be
> "experts" at our craft of writing suggests that we have spent years
> struggling to define what processes work best for each of us. I am
> willing to bet that not a single one of us has the same writing process
> for the same kinds of work. In fact, I'm willing to bet that each of us
> has a repetoir of processes that we use depending on the medium, time
> constratins, purposes, audiences, and our moods.