1. This question in it's own may be unimportant but I still wonder. Can you split authors into hunters and gathers as Kleine talks about in his article? Or is that what he's talking about? I think Kliene is discussing the writing process styles of writers and not the writers themselves. Society is always trying to dumb down the writing process into five simple, easy to follow steps. When in reality how many writers actually write with that exact, evenly split, five step process? We saw with Murray when he became a research project that his process of writing over lapped tremendously. I think it is essential for us to teach the five step writing process when learning to write but as you grow as a writer is it no longer appropriate.
2. The system he's using to score these writers seems to be quite subjective so how is it accurate? If he is the one always doing the interviews with the writers then it is possibly less subjective. But still, he seems to have a lot of issues and frustrations with his own systems of coding/scoring that I wonder how accurate is really is? Why not add more categories or make them more inclusive. If I was the audience and knew how biased this was I don't know how much I could rely on his research.
3. I brought this topic up in another one of my IWA's or discussion questions but it keeps reoccurring to me. Kliene starts talking about how the eight writers he interviewed never wrote for an external reason, they always wrote for internal reasons. Every time this leads me to celebrities or TV stars and the discussion of are they really writers? Real writers write for internal reasons, not for the money or because a higher authority asks it of them. Does Dr.Phil write because he has an internal want to write or does he write for the fame and the money. I know I've discussed this before and I should probably drop it but I don't believe people like Dr. Phil should get the amount of respect they do for their writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment