Brandt Ch. 2: "What Now?" The Process of Involvement

 

In chapter 2 of this text, Brandt explains some different methods of understanding the writing process. In some attempts to explain these processes, Brandt takes the reader through a journey of what the writer is actually thinking at all stages of the writing process. Although not an entirely new attempt to further understand writing, actually saying aloud what is going on in one's mind can offer several perspectives as how that translates to what is written. This has been challenged, though, as many critics claim much more, i.e., context plays a large role in understanding the writing process: “Understanding what writers do when they compose, critics argue, requires a wider view of both writers' social identities and the cultural resources sand constraints that they contend with” ( 34). Brandt uses two writing models, “Mark” and “Paul,” to dissect two different types of writers. “Mark” represents the “expert” writer and “Paul” the novice and Brandt explains how each approaches a composition task.

One of the best ways to understand the oral process, within a limited context, comes from analyzing what the writer attempts to write when they have two different outcomes in mind. There is the what “to say”( novice) plan of writing and the what “to do”(expert) plan of writing. The “what to say”model makes sense as far as structure goes, but the “do” is when a writer attempts to keep the reader engaged, regardless of what may make sense to write. What the writer is thinking will keep the reader engages or what should come next, say chronologically, has social implications as well. The two oral protocols of “Mark” and “Paul” display this idea that writing is more than an individual process. Brandt explains that “expert” writing is part of a social act in that writers are part of something that is moving and evolving. It is in understanding the social implications and seeing writing as a force of nature that can, hopefully, be harnessed by the writer in order to write more effectively.

Brandt makes several arguments that display cognitive abilities for the expert to be superior due to his being able to perceive the meta narrative and see writing as part of a social context, but doesn't explain how to bridge the cognitive gap between the two. Also, this chapter doesn't bring to light and new ideas, but addresses them in a different way. This is where the value of this text actually is. Looking at two different writers and considering what exactly makes one “good” can be confusing, but placing the writing within the social context helps one better understand just how much social context of a writer plays.