Cover not available
Part of
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

2.2.1
Metaphors for the writing process

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).
Keywords: metaphors, writing process, manuscripts, romantic genius, cognition, writing studies, writing strategies, genetic criticism
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
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (60)
References
Abrams, M. H. 1971 [1953]. The Mirror and the Lamp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
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
Badenhausen, Richard. 2005. T. S. Eliot and the Art of Collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
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
Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.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
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
Chandler, Daniel. 1995. The Act of Writing: A Media Theory Approach. Aberystwyth: Prifysgol Cymru.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
Coetzee, J. M. 2003. Elizabeth Costello. London: Secker and Warburg.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
Dennett, Daniel C. 1991. Consciousness Explained. London: Penguin.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
Farrell, John. 2017. The Varieties of Authorial Intention: Literary Theory Beyond the Intentional Fallacy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ferrer, Daniel. 2011. Logiques du brouillon: Modèles pour une critique génétique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
. 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
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
. 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
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
. 2009. “Writing as Discovery.” British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 6: 5–26.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
. 2018. “The Work of Writing: Raiding the Inarticulate.” Educational Psychologist 53: 238–257.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
Grésillon, Almuth. 1992. “Ralentir: travaux.” Genesis 1: 9–31.Google Scholar
. 1994. Eléments de critique génétique: Lire les manuscrits modernes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Slow: Work in Progress.” Word and Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry 13 (2): 106–123.Google Scholar
Hay, Louis. 1984. “Die dritte Dimension der Literatur.” Poetica 16 (3–4): 307–23.Google Scholar
. 1986–87. “La Troisième Dimension de la littérature.” Texte, 5–6: 313–328.Google Scholar
James, Henry. Hawthorne. London: Macmillan, 1879.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
Joyce, James. 1939. Finnegans Wake. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
. 1991. Stephen Hero, ed. by Theodore Spencer, revised by John J. Slocum and Herbert Cahoon. London: HarperCollins and Paladin.Google Scholar
. 1986. Ulysses, ed. by Hans Walter Gabler, Wolfhard Steppe, and Claus Melchior. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
. 2000. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. London: Penguin Classics.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
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. 1993. The Growth of “Leaves of Grass”: The Organic Tradition in Whitman Studies. Columbia: Camden House.Google Scholar
King, Stephen. 2000. On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. New York: Scribner.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
McGann, Jerome. 1983. The Romantic Ideology: A Critical Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Menary, Richard. 2007. “Writing as Thinking.” Language Sciences 29 (5): 621–32.Google Scholar
Milosz, Czeslaw. 1988. The Collected Poems, 1931–1987. New York: Ecco.Google Scholar
Ortner, Hanspeter. 2000. Schreiben und Denken. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Scheibe, Siegfried. 1982. “Zum editorischen Problem des Textes.” Zeitschrift der deutschen Philologie, Sonderheft 101: 12–29.Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Smith, Stevie. 1980 [1938]. Over the Frontier. London: Virago.Google Scholar
Stillinger, Jack. 1991. Multiple Authorship and the Myth of Solitary Genius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Hannah. 2013. The Work of Revision. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomashevsky, Boris. 1928. Pisatel’ i kniga: Ocherk tekstologii [The Writer and the book. Textology: An outline]. Leningrad: Priboi.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
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
Van Hulle, Dirk. 2006. “Growth and the Grid: Organic vs Constructivist Conceptions of Poetry.” Neophilologus 90: 491–507.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
Van Mierlo, Wim. 2006. Review of Genetic Criticism by Jed Deppmann, Daniel Ferrer and Michael Groden. Textual Cultures 1 (2): 162–68.Google Scholar
Woolf, Virginia. 2002. Moments of Being: Autobiographical Writings, ed. by Jeanne Schulkind, with an introduction by Hermione Lee. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
Young, Edward. 1759. Conjectures on Original Composition. London: A. Millar and R. and J. Dodsley.Google Scholar