Cover not available

In:A Comparative History of the Literary Draft in Europe
Edited by Olga Beloborodova and Dirk Van Hulle
[Comparative History of Literatures in European Languages XXXV] 2024
► pp. 434–449

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF

2.2.1
Metaphors for the writing process

 | University of Oxford | University of Antwerp
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 8 November 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/chlel.xxxv.30van
Abstract
This chapter discusses various metaphors that have been suggested as conceptual models by numerous authors in the past to try and understand aspects of their creative process and the roles of the literary draft. The question is whether they are all equally apt. By juxtaposing several of them, the aim is to investigate to what extent certain metaphors are forms of writers’ self-representation that may not always correspond with the reality of what is left in the drafts. These metaphors are organised in three sections, focusing respectively on questions of “Authorship” (ways of framing what it is to be a maker or creator), “Inspiration” (imagination, invention, discovery as cognitive phenomena) (Clark 1997), and “Perspiration” (writing strategies, tactics and techniques).
Article outline
  • Authorship
  • Pregnancy and childbirth
  • “Inspiration”: Imagination, inception, discovery, invention
    • Chaos and cosmos
    • Germs, germination, and growth
    • Sudden vs gradual: Epiphanies and revelations vs gradual discovery and invention
    • Discovery and invention
    • Re-vision and dictation
  • “Perspiration”: Writing strategies, tactics and techniques
  • Notes
  • References
References (60)
References
Abrams, M. H. 1971 [1953]. The Mirror and the Lamp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alamargot, Denis and Jean-Louis Lebrave. 2010. “The Study of Professional Writing: A Joint Contribution from Cognitive Psychology and Genetic Criticism.” European Psychologist 15 (1): 12–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baaijen, Veerle M., and David Galbraith. 2018. “Discovery Through Writing: Relationships with Writing Processes and Text Quality.” Cognition and Instruction 36 (3): 199–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Badenhausen, Richard. 2005. T. S. Eliot and the Art of Collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balley, Mark. 2020. “Ian McEwan: ‘I write to find where I’m going.’” Financial Times, 14 Feb 2020. [URL]
Beckett, Samuel. 1984. Disjecta, ed. by Ruby Cohn. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellemin-Noël, Jean. 2004. “Psychoanalytic reading and the Avant-texte.” In Genetic Criticism: Texts and Avant-textes, ed. by Jed Deppman, Daniel Ferrer, and Michael Groden, 28–35. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biasi, Pierre-Marc de. 2004. “Toward a Science of Literature: Manuscript Analysis and the Genesis of the Work.” In Genetic Criticism: Texts and Avant-Textes, ed. by Jed Deppman, Daniel Ferrer, and Michael Groden, 36–68. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brontë, Charlotte. 1995. The Letters of Charlotte Brontë with a Selection of Letters by Family and Friends, ed. by Margaret Smith, vol. I: 1829–1848. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chandler, Daniel. 1995. The Act of Writing: A Media Theory Approach. Aberystwyth: Prifysgol Cymru.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Timothy. 1997. The Theory of Inspiration: Composition as a Crisis of Subjectivity in Romantic and Post-Romantic Writing. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coetzee, J. M. 2003. Elizabeth Costello. London: Secker and Warburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuda, Anthony. 2007. “What Matters Most: Review of Czeslaw Milosz, Selected Poems 1931–2005.” Contemporary Poetry and Poetics 76: 80–91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1991. Consciousness Explained. London: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dhillon, Rhianna. 2018. “Ian McEwan and Billy Howle discuss the new adaptation of On Chesil Beach.” Interview, Penguin Features, 15 May 2018, [URL]
Ellis, Edwin. 1907. The Real Blake: A Portrait Biography. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farrell, John. 2017. The Varieties of Authorial Intention: Literary Theory Beyond the Intentional Fallacy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrer, Daniel. 2004. “Towards a Marginalist Economy of Textual Genesis”. In Reading Notes, ed. by Dirk Van Hulle and Wim Van Mierlo, 7–18. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Logiques du brouillon: Modèles pour une critique génétique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes. 1980a. “The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem.” College Composition and Communication 31 (1): 21–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1980b. “The Dynamic of Composing: Making Plans and juggling constraints.” In Cognitive Processes in Writing, ed. by L. W. Gregg and R. E. Steinberg, 31–50. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galbraith, David. 1999. “Writing as a Knowledge-Constituting Process.” In Knowing What to Write: Conceptual Processes in Text Production, ed. by M. Torrance and D. Galbraith, 139–160. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Writing as Discovery.” British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 6: 5–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galbraith, David, and Veerle M. Baaijen. 2015. “Conflict in Writing: Actions and Objects.” In Writing(s) at the Crossroads: The Process/Product Interface, ed. by G. Cislaru, 253–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “The Work of Writing: Raiding the Inarticulate.” Educational Psychologist 53: 238–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gellhaus, Axel. 2004. “Marginalia: Paul Celan as Reader.” In Reading Notes, ed. by Dirk Van Hulle and Wim Van Mierlo, 207–19. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grésillon, Almuth. 1992. “Ralentir: travaux.” Genesis 1: 9–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Eléments de critique génétique: Lire les manuscrits modernes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. “Slow: Work in Progress.” Word and Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry 13 (2): 106–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Louis. 1984. “Die dritte Dimension der Literatur.” Poetica 16 (3–4): 307–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986–87. “La Troisième Dimension de la littérature.” Texte 5–6: 313–328.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
James, Henry. Hawthorne. London: Macmillan, 1879.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel. 1977. Selected Poetry and Prose, ed. by Frank Brady and W. K. Wimsatt. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joyce, James. 1939. Finnegans Wake. New York: Viking.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Stephen Hero, ed. by Theodore Spencer, revised by John J. Slocum and Herbert Cahoon. London: HarperCollins and Paladin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Ulysses, ed. by Hans Walter Gabler, Wolfhard Steppe, and Claus Melchior. London: Vintage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald T. 2018. “Professional Writing Expertise.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, ed. by K. Anders Ericsson, Neil Charness, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert R. Hoffman, 389–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. 1993. The Growth of “Leaves of Grass”: The Organic Tradition in Whitman Studies. Columbia: Camden House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
King, Stephen. 2000. On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lowes, John Livingston. 1927. The Road to Xanadu: A Study in the Ways of the Imagination. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGann, Jerome. 1983. The Romantic Ideology: A Critical Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Menary, Richard. 2007. “Writing as Thinking.” Language Sciences 29 (5): 621–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milosz, Czeslaw. 1988. The Collected Poems, 1931–1987. New York: Ecco.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortner, Hanspeter. 2000. Schreiben und Denken. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheibe, Siegfried. 1982. “Zum editorischen Problem des Textes.” Zeitschrift der deutschen Philologie, Sonderheft 101: 12–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. 1977. Shelley’s Poetry and Prose, ed. by Donald H. Reiman and Sharon B. Powers. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Stevie. 1980 [1938]. Over the Frontier. London: Virago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stillinger, Jack. 1991. Multiple Authorship and the Myth of Solitary Genius. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullivan, Hannah. 2013. The Work of Revision. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomashevsky, Boris. 1928. Pisatel’ i kniga: Ocherk tekstologii [The Writer and the book. Textology: An outline]. Leningrad: Priboi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungar, Hermann. 1925. “Was die Manuskripte des Dichters verraten: Ein Blick in die Werkstatt Thomas Manns.” Die literarische Welt, 30 October 1925: 1–2.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valéry, Paul. 2000. “Poetry.” In Cahiers/Notebooks, vol. 2, ed. by Brian Stimpson, Paul Gifford, and Robert Pickering, trans. by Norma Rinsler. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Hulle, Dirk. 2006. “Growth and the Grid: Organic vs Constructivist Conceptions of Poetry.” Neophilologus 90: 491–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. “Genetic Maps in Modern Philology.” In Handbook of Stemmatology: History, Methodology, Digital Approaches, ed. by Philipp Roelli, 521–30. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Mierlo, Wim. 2006. Review of Genetic Criticism by Jed Deppman, Daniel Ferrer and Michael Groden. Textual Cultures 1 (2): 162–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woolf, Virginia. 2002. Moments of Being: Autobiographical Writings, ed. by Jeanne Schulkind, with an introduction by Hermione Lee. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Young, Edward. 1759. Conjectures on Original Composition. London: A. Millar and R. and J. Dodsley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue