Murray-2

1.) Murray's writing process seems very prolonged and time consuming. He records endless amounts if his "out loud" thoughts and aloud editing. He makes notes out loud on what he needs to do. Then he wrote really lofty drafts and made his critically acclaimed wife read over and edit them for him. In summary, his process is very long long and extended. My process is not so long and lofty. I don't do the "critical" things that he does, I very much stick to my outline. I like to keep my process short and sweet, even though it doesn't really turn out that way. The only thing we might do the same is have a significant other reread our work. I do this a lot.

3.) He found that "the writers" protocols shed new light on the great and small decisions and revisions that form planning. And that the decisions and revisions form an elaborate network of steps. He also learned that even with all of the decisions an revisions,  every writer has their own quirks and "ways" they do the things they do. I think he realized that every writer is different , so planning and revising can be difficult and different , based on who you are as a writer. But it can be done well, and efficiently or timely, depending on what you work or deal with best.

4.) ~He noted that problems arose from how the writers' particular work habits affected the gathering of data. ~When a writer is breaking ground conceptually, his pace slows. ~When in an unfamiliar, strange place, writers find it difficult to come up with good ideas and express them a good way. He's taking a "fresh" new approach and this is allowing him to solve these problems better, and more efficiently. Of course weaknesses will remain. No will ever be a perfect writer, editor, reviser, planner, etc. Except for maybe Shakespeare. Maybe.I feel like, having weaknesses are a good thing. How are we ever going to learn and expand, if we have nothing to learn from? And no one likes a know-it-all. There's just no way to be perfect.