Mirskin's Writing as a Process of Valuing

Professor Jerry Mirskin discusses the relation of meaning to value in the context of the writing, rewriting, and revision processes. He asserts that "value determines the form and content of what we attend to as it selects from an infinite world and assigns meaning." (389) Thus, if one imposes a value onto something, meaning is thus given to it. Social contexts, he argues, are key for this process of making meaning since attitudes and understanding generally develop from interpersonal content we internalize and negotiate into our own perspectives. I particularly enjoyed the description of the stages of the writing process, especially the first draft as "testifying." (399) I thought after reading this that at least four rounds of revision are necessary to end up with a piece of effective writing, and I realized speech and early drafts just don't cut it. The "activity of writing" needs to continue in order to produce something useful to readers, and cannot occur just as a single "act." (399) And yet, I do see in myself and my peers the same reluctance that Jeanne displayed to do serious revision; we feel as though we've gotten it out, but really there is so much to strengthen and clarify after the foundation is settled. Like Jeanne, I think we learn through workshops that our writing can become even more introspective and profound, as "her process of valuing could be unpacked as a way of understanding how she is constructing the meaning of her experience." (406) New contexts of value we develop in revision allow us to make new, significant meanings for ourselves and our readers, resulting in a more complete piece of writing.

I was inspired to conduct a little social experiment at dinner this evening, having finished reading the article just minutes prior. I was eating with three of my close friends and decided to tell a very vague story with an ineffective ending, followed by a very specific one laden with direct quotations, detailed points, and a heartfelt ending. Obviously, the second one received better response than the first. I think my friends were more able to connect with the story that way, observing something meaningful about it in the value I ascribed to the instance I recounted. They responded thoughtfully to the content and pressed me forward, asking questions and remarking specific points they were engaged in, whereas with the first story the conversation moved on to another topic pretty quickly. I think this was in keeping with Professor Mirskin's findings in his peer review examples. Like the students who reviewed Jeanne's paper, with the hope of "'identifying with,' relating to,' and 'understanding' the significance of Jeanne's experience," my friends were more likely to look for meaning in my words when it was evident I was doing so myself. (405)