My writing process
Wednesday, October 22, 2008.
1 Comments:
-
At October 24, 2008,
Hypatia said...
-
All good interesting stuff. I like to garner as many perspectives on the writing process as possible, but/and (as you so rightly say) everyone has to tailor their approach individually.
The process of writing is something unique to each of us. Some people go through numerous drafts for everything they write; others seem to get it right the first time. I am still learning about and developing my process. However, I thought I might share a little about my approach, not because it is ideal but because it seems to work for me. I would be interested to hear how others manage the writing process.
I begin by carefully reading through my subject's primary sources at least once, though reading through it multiple times is always best. As I read I take notes, often typing large quotations word-for-word. I find large quotations are much more helpful than short ones because lengthy quotations provide a sense of the argument's context. As I input these quotations I arrange them by category (eg 'Anthropology', 'Cosmology', etc.). After I have read through the text, I like to gain some background by reading through at least a few secondary sources. I find it helpful to read at least one older, 'seminal' work on the subject (eg something written between 1920-1960). Checking through bibliographies is one way to find these works, or at least to locate the 'standard' works. Next, I read through at least one newer book on the subject that has been extremely well received by experts in the field. For Athanasius, for example, Anatolios' Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought stands as perhaps the most important recent work on the subject, and is therefore essential reading for anyone engaging Athanasius. Additionally, I like to read through journal articles in order to supplement and expand my perspective.
Having said all this, I think it is important not to dedicate too much time to background reading because I want to get my own perspective on the subject written before I become absolutely overwhelmed with the perspectives of others. These other perspectives should not be ignored, but I can engage them and learn from them after I have concretely established my own (tentative) view on the subject through writing. The value of putting my thoughts down in writing before I have read too broadly is that it allows me to record my perspective while it is still fresh in my mind and largely a product of my own engagement with the primary texts. It also means I have a concrete perspective that I can use to dialogue with other secondary sources.
As I prepare to write, I read through my notes, trying to get a sense of how the parts fit together. During this time I often break large categories into subcategories according to the logic of the subject's own perspective. E.g. in Irenaeus' works I might have the broad category of soteriology or deification, and a sub-category of 'recapitulation'. As I read through these notes over and over, I begin to get a sense of the bigger picture. Eventually I write a rough outline of my paper itself. After this, I usually re-categorise my notes according to this outline. Sometimes this involves combining a couple sub-categories; other times it involves creating a new category altogether. Then I begin to write my paper itself, using these categories to texts and to preserve both the big picture and the details of the subject. I usually write sub-section by sub-section. Sometimes it is helpful to write out a short (1/2 page) hand-written outline of the sub-section. This outline usually consists of individual points or sentences that I wish to include, based on the texts themselves. One point might look like: [It is] impossible for man to reform himself into the image [of God] AH 3.18.2. This rough writing forms the basis of the sub-section, and it is a helpful way to quickly record, analyse, organise, and re-organise the flow of my argument without having to worry about grammar and style. Next, I try to write the sub-section itself, using the outline as a guide. When writing in this way, I try to write clearly, though I try not to be too concerned with style. At this stage it is much more important for me to develop my ideas and be careful concerning the details and the arguments.
After finishing this rough draft on the subject, I try put some temporal distance between myself and the paper so I can hopefully approach it with a more critical eye. I also try to re-read the primary source, or at least my notes on it, so I can test where my paper does and does not align with the text itself. After this, I read those secondary sources that I had avoided reading. These processes help refine my perspective. Finally, I revise my paper in order to accommodate these changes and improve the writing itself. It is at this stage that I can say that I have what one might call a first or second draft. Undoubtedly the paper remains imperfect, but at least it should be presentable and ready for later, more mature revision.
Blogroll
Post a Comment