In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

P r eface In 1953, the Paris Review began publishing a series of interviews with writers of the day, including Truman Capote, Dorothy Parker, and William Faulkner. During Review editor visits to their homes and writing studios, interviewees were asked how specific works came to fruition as well as general questions about the writing process. The purpose of the “Writers at Work” interview series was to offer a chance for writers to talk about the backstory of published works where “the interviews read like good conversation” unlike traditional literary criticism (Brooks 1963, 6). The interviews provided a fascinating snapshot of how authors find ideas, struggle with writer’s block, approach revision, and navigate publication venues—certainly relevant issues to teachers of writing but also to faculty struggling with publication. As a professor of rhetoric and composition and part-time faculty developer who coaches faculty writers, I’ve long been fascinated by the messiness of moving writing from idea to final publication Review interviews bring to light. Every choice from idea generation, to phrasing, to revision strategies, to the time of day to work on writing from each writer provides a collective picture of productive writing habits for the most successful writers over the past sixty years. From working with faculty writing groups and tenure and promotion workshops, I am acutely aware of the struggles faculty of all disciplines face with writing, particularly in attitudes toward writing where frustration, fear, and shame are common and in areas where they lack strategies for process (starting and restarting a writing project), product (moving a project to completion), and productivity (developing habits to ensure process and product thrive). How Writing Faculty Write replicates The Paris Review interview process by providing the back story about the academic writing habits of “rock star” rhetoric and composition faculty to learn what makes them successful. Perhaps more importantly , the interviewees also capture how writing faculty differ from other faculty writers, and therefore the interviews also offer a novel way to think about faculty writing practices as an area of research for the discipline . As Jonathan Alexander (2015, 383) argues in his first editorial piece as College Composition and Communication editor: “The production x   P REFACE of questions about writing is what our discipline is all about.” In addition to providing specific answers about how writing faculty write, it is my hope that the collection prompts new questions about faculty writing practices within rhetoric and composition. ...

pdf

Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.