Translating and physical environment

This research confirms observations by Berkenkotter and Murray that it is worth looking into the details of situational variables, and that this was a significant omission from Flower and Hayes’ study. There was support from the interviews for Csikszentmihalyi’s hypotheses that physical environment can have an impact on the creative process, but this needs expanding on as equipment in addition to spatio- temporal and affective concerns could influence the writing process. Pens, computers, paper and notebooks, can all facilitate or hinder smooth and speedy translation of all the other writing sub-processes into text or diagrammatic form. While the authors displayed varying levels of attachment to their particular transcription tools, with the men ostensibly rather disinterested and the women89 intensely interested in the aesthetics and quality of their computers, notepads and other stationery, the ability of the transcription tools to work efficiently and quickly so that transient thoughts could be quickly captured, was emphasized to some degree by all the authors.

Questions such as portability also enter into the equation if the writer needs to change environments in keeping with the rhythms and needs of their particular creative writing process. In addition, aesthetic and personalized, even ritual aspects are of importance, so a treasured writing implement (which could be a pencil in preference to a pen, a specific brand of notebook or a laptop) that fits a particular writer’s identity could do much to help the author access the mental space they need in order to feel creative and inspired or simply dedicated to another four hours’ work. While Van de Ruit and Coovadia claimed no particular interest in the tools of their trade, it was noted that Coovadia has a very good quality, stylish computer and iTunes to play his music on while writing, and has thus invested significantly in his working space, while Van de Ruit feels the need for a new laptop for each new book, indicating a sense of ritual new beginnings90. Van de Ruit claimed a pen had to work well

89

This interesting gender difference could be something worth exploring, but could equally turn out not to be gender-related at all. It is impossible to say with only four authors involved in the study.

90

While he said this was because each computer seemed to ‘crash’ at the end of a book, there are other ways around the problem and it is significant that he saves the laptops. Prolific UK author Terry Pratchett clears his hard drive completely once each novel has been published and so does not feel the same need for a new computer for each book. Orford also works on a laptop and does not change computers between books.

especially for the book signings he performs, as he is in pain after a day of this publicity work. Arguably the same pain would result from writing his average of 3 000 words a day if he were to write by hand, and questions of repetitive strain injuries a full time writer might incur arise and coincide with Beake’s comments on the qualities of the ideal pens and paper in terms of ease of use. There is thus an indication that it could be important to balance practical factors (such as the

portability and processing speed of a laptop computer) with personal considerations (patterns of aesthetic values, semiotics, sense of belonging to a mythical community of other artists, personal interests and identity) for translation (and other processes) to be optimized.

Apart from Beake’s injunction that her computer is beautiful because ‘if you work on something all day, you should work with some pleasure’, there was the interesting match between the physical spaces these authors wrote in and what they said about their goals in their writing. Coovadia’s study contains a number of decorative items from India and the Orient. He also keeps his work as a novelist physically separated from his work at the University of Cape Town by working at home on his writing and in his office at the university for everything else, just as he believes he should keep his writing process separate from his creative writing students. Orford said at a festival that she sometimes wishes she were more like the glamorous, single, heroine of her thriller series, with her minimalist existence. In strong contrast to her family home, filled with the trappings of a busy family, she has a writing studio in her garden, in which she indulges her fantasy of minimalism and solitude while she writes.

As Csikszentmihalyi postulated, all the authors in this study had personalized spaces in which they did most of their writing work. These environments both reflected their writing styles and goals, and provided a secure place where they could concentrate on their writing undisturbed. Regularly used writing spaces all had good views, either of mountains, the sea or both (for Coovadia, Beake and Orford) or of a pleasing street scene (in Van de Ruit’s case). At the same time, all sought out novel environments on occasion. Orford and Van de Ruit like to remove themselves from their familiar surroundings to remote retreats where they are not contactable for particular stages of their writing process: Van de Ruit at the start of a novel when he needs a break from the previous book and wants to generate fresh ideas; Orford when she needs to gain fresh perspective in the reviewing part of her writing process. Orford and Beake also appeared to occasionally enjoy a change of scene from their quiet workplaces at home to the more social milieu of a coffee shop or restaurant. All of the authors travel fairly frequently, either to places which are key to the generation of ideas through research, or, as is the case with Coovadia, as part of his work. In summary, they had created a physical world in which the tools of their trade were more than simply efficient and easy to work with. They were symbolic of particular aspects of the writing process and of the worlds being created in their fiction.

There is also a sense of ritual to the patterning of the working day that each author subscribes to, whether it involves working for a particular time period in the morning (Coovadia) or afternoon (Van de Ruit), or a fairly standard working day (Orford and Beake), measured with various markers such as number of words (all authors) or chapters and days of the week in a diary to complete (Beake and Van de Ruit). The

working day is interspersed with fairly frequent breaks that are often involved in the generation of ideas, or revision, rather than simply being rest periods.

Translation took place either first in the form of handwritten notes while ideas were being generated and organized, which were later either retyped onto computer (as in Orford’s case) or simply kept in case they were needed for future reference after capturing initial ideas (as in Beake’s case) or it took place directly onto the authors’ computers (as in Beake, Coovadia and Van de Ruit’s instances). While Orford saw generating ideas directly on a computer as overly mechanistic and likely to generate ideas from the intellect rather than the emotional truth she seeks, this sentiment was not shared by the other authors. All except for Coovadia transcribed organizational diagrams on paper at various points in the writing process.

While there is a danger of taking these findings and deciding that a well appointed study with lovely views and a state of the art laptop will lead to excellent writing, what is suggested here is not a simple causal relationship. The presence of physical

discomfort or an ascetic environment could even help some writers, if this were part of how they saw writers they admire working. The suggestion is simply that these factors do play a role as expressions of a particular individual’s personality that allows them to enter into a particular state of mind for creative writing, and because of the practical considerations mentioned above.

7.2.4 Other influences on the writing process: personal relationships and the