I found the pre-vision, vision and re-vision description of the writing process fascinating. The Pre-vision process in particular interested me, because it was here that I find Murray's thought seems to embody a contradiction that I have run into in studying the writing process from a creative perspective. In discussing pre-vision Tony indicated that Murray held the work in his head until he had a solic mental picture of it, in fact waiting for the presence of one of eight (Was it eight? I think it was eight) mental clues that one is prepared to begin the physical process of putting words on paper, or - as the case is much more likely to be in modern times - on the screen. The writer wrestles the piece around mentally, until one of the listed triggers arrives indicating a readiness to move from pre-vision to vision.
Here is where I found that Murray seems to embody a contradiction that I have long pondered. In reading any number of writing texts written strictly from a practioner's perspective (as opposed to a scholarly or theoretical approach like the texts used for this course) such as the previously mentioned Stephen Koch text, I have encountered the debate from various writers (with varying degrees of extreme prescriptivist answers and abstemious middle ways)of whether one must write daily - "Treat it as work. You can't wait to get in the mood. To be a professional writer, you must treat writing as a profession, something that you are always doing whether you are in the mood or not," seems to capture the extreme end of this attitude here - or whether one should wait until one is feeling inspired, or in the mood.
I have seen writers who refuse to write without some sign of their own readiness similar to those described by Murray and those who prescribe a given number of words per-diem as the cure all for writing woes. Murray seems to embody both. I wonder how the practice of waiting for the metnal dialogue to reach the readiness point meshes with the encouraged practice of writing every day, presumably whether inspired or not as I have never met anyone who feels inspired all the time.
Well, Murray’s own philosophy did not allow him to wait long, since he believed in writing every day. I would have liked to have heard more about exactly how Murray used those signals. I think many of us employ them without realizing it. We toy with an idea or a glimpse of an idea, and soon it turns into something more solid. I think of Tillie Olson and “I Stand Here Ironing.” Some of my strongest pieces have developed over the dishes or behind a lawnmower. I frequently start out with a peeve about something that I think might generate a letter to the editor, and as I push across a skillet or a lawn, my idea stretches into an essay or a story. I wonder if the same kind of thing would happen if I sat right down to write, or whether I might, in fact, simply write the letter.
ReplyDeleteIt’s funny, though, composing in my head doesn’t always feel like writing, and, I’m sorry to say, it does not always make it to paper, though more and more frequently, it does. I think we are inspired to write far more often than we realize—or than is realized. Maybe Murray’s signals are to cue us that we have enough of a spark to just sit down and start writing.