I like the comparison/contrast manner of Tony’s presentation of Murray’s view of writing in relation to Elbow’s. Both focused on process and the chief difference seemed to be that Murray began writing with “a clear vision of the product”—even though he did welcome surprise in writing. Maybe that tone is the difference between a guy who wrote for newspapers and a guy who wrote for academia, a guy who often wrote with a definite subject matter in mind and a deadline and guy who didn’t. But when the both wrote about the process of writing, I don’t see much contrast.
In his ’72 article, “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product” (an article that predates Elbow’s first book on writing by a year), Murray’s views are identical to Elbow’s. Murray says that teaching writing by critiquing literature is teaching students to do an autopsy instead teaching them to make “language live.” He calls true writing the process of discovery through language, a process of revealing “the truth to himself so that he can tell it to others.” In the classroom, “we should teach unfinished writing, and glory in its unfinishedness.” In this focus on the student as an individual appropriating knowledge for himself rather than being appropriated by that knowledge into a system of discourse, the product-drivenness of Murray’s view of writing fades.
His major tenets (at least at this time) are exactly those of Elbow: the text of a writing course is the student’s own writing; the student finds his own subject, uses his own language; multiple drafts are written on the same subject; mechanics come last. Writing is a process that occurs between a fluctuation between two poles—unpressured time “to think and dream and stare out windows” and pressured time, “the deadline.” The latter parallels Elbow’s dichotomous view of writing: freewriting/critiquing, believing/doubting game.
In his ’78 article, Murray writes: “Most of all, we need to move from failure-centered research to research which defines what happens when the writing goes well.” In this I hear echoes of Elbow’s critique of methodological doubt: that it is focused on finding flaws rather than looking for positives in writing. If Elbow propounded a weird, hippy sort of attitude like the “believing game” to overcome the problem, Murray seems only slightly different, more in tone than substance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know that Donna said we shouldn't focus only on the positive aspects of a post, but I could not agree more with your comparison between Elbow and Murray. They are both writers who concentrate heavily on how to get across to students, and to do that, one must get past the “autopsy table,” as you put it. Murray was absolutely in tune with the spiritual connection between a writer and his writing. Murray was constantly espousing how writing should be organic and spontaneous. The difference between Murray and Elbow, as you pointed out, was fundamentally where to begin. Elbow focused on prewriting as almost a cognitive trick to work through a topic and come to an idea about what should be written about. Murray has a similar idea, but for him, the ideas work themselves out through internal dialogue. Rather than work through the “mess,” Murray believed that writer would come to a topic when his mind was ready. The other difference between the two was how much the prewriting affected the end product. I am definitely an expert on Elbow, but it seemed from his interview and your presentation that he felt the prewriting was a starting place, a solid foundation to begin a paper. For Murray, the “rehearsal” not only clarified the beginning point, but it solidified a “vision,” to use Murray’s term, of the whole paper. While he did believe in and enjoy surprises during the drafting stage, he knew what the end product was going to resemble before he first put his pencil to paper; at least I hope that’s what he meant, or my presentation wasn’t as accurate as I hoped.
ReplyDeleteTony, In the '72 article, "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product," I don't think there was much difference between Elbow and Murray. He says of writing the first draft after the prewriting stage that it is "rough, searching, unfinished." "Rewriting is reconsideration of subject, form, and audience." This is early stuff in Murray and he may have modified his views. It also applies to young writers--maybe more developed students have a better sense of where they want to go in the prewriting stage. But then, maybe you can have a vision and still be confused about exactly what it means.
ReplyDelete