The question that Berkenkotter asked was to what extent can a writer’s subjective testimony be trusted. She looked for the answer to this question by asking a professional writer to be a subject in a naturalistic study. This study involved a professional writer engaging in a lengthy naturalistic study. This study had three stages and took place between June 15th until August 15th. Throughout this Murray learned a lot through the research that was done. What he learned about himself was how eccentric his work habits look to others. Murray explains how he usually produces copies in short bursts. Nothing is really planned in an experiment, but some things are expected. Researchers expected to find interesting things about his writing and that is exactly what they found. Bathroom epiphany is when someone goes to the bathroom or away from what they are focusing on and comes back with a new idea or view of that thing. This study showed the diversity of writers and how their styles are so different. Experimenting on writers and finding research is a very difficult thing. Although the way it was conducted and the different variations of the study was the best way to get as much information as researchers could.
After reading about the study, I started to reflect on my own writing methods. I learned that I tend to add unneeded details. By adding that “fluff” it can cause confusion and make the topic I’m writing about run on. I feel that if I started making drafts, I would be able to better narrow down the important details. I completely agree with Lamotts writing. process in Shitty First Drafts. Sometimes I find it easier like Lamott to just complete the writing in sessions. I get to a point while writing that I just don’t know what I’m even writing about anymore. So, by taking a break it will allow myself to rethink and center my thoughts. There are so many different ways to write but finding one that works for you can make the process much easier.
Leave a Reply