Write a lot better Part Two: Writing a lot

写得更好 第二部分: 写很多

第一部分的链接 https://www.jianshu.com/p/aeeeb5041229

…to be a writer you have to be present at your work every day, whether you finally write something or not (Richard Ford, 2007)

...要成为一名作家，你必须作一天和尚撞一天钟，不管你最终是否写出了什么东西(理查德 · 福特，2007年)。

KJ：现代心理学实验表明，掌握一门技艺，首要是充分练习，质变前先要有量的积累，别贪心想走捷径，此路不通。

In order to improve our writing, to write well, we students, teachers and researchers should shift away from producing ‘sterile, voiceless academic prose’ towards scholarly writing which is ‘warm, inviting and intensely personal’. We also need to see rewriting as a way of simplifying our original texts especially by clearing out the clutter we inevitably create. Writing well is, though, a hard process which requires us to push ourselves in order to excel (see Part One).

要提高写作水平，写得更好，学生、老师和研究人员应该从创作“枯燥乏味、无声无息的学术散文”转向温馨、引人入胜、强烈个性化的学术写作。 我们也需要把重写修改作为一种精简原始文本的方式，特别是通过清除不可避免地的杂乱。 不过，写好文章是一个艰难历程，需要我们不断鞭策自己才能出类拔萃(参见第一部分)。

Writing well is one thing. Writing a lot is another. We were fortunate, I think, in getting Zinsser’s advice on writing well (Zinsser, 2006) and we are also lucky to get some recent advice on writing a lot (Silvia, 2007). Silvia’s overall aim is to help make us reflective and disciplined writers by becoming more active in planning our work, in setting clear goals, in monitoring what we do, in rewarding ourselves and in building good habits. He wants us to muzzle the ‘inner writer’ within us in order to unleash the ‘outer writer’. In other words he urges us to ‘write like a normal human being, not like a poet and certainly not like a psychologist’ (ibid. 3-7). And he actually is a psychologist and his book is published by the American Psychological Association. So he and they should know.

写得好是一回事，高产写很多是另一回事。 我认为，我们有幸得到了Zinsser关于写作的建议(Zinsser，2006) ，我们也幸运地得到了关于如何高产写作的最新建议(Silvia，2007年)。 Silvia的总体目标是通过更积极地规划我们的工作，设定明确的目标，监督我们的工作，奖励我们自己和养成良好的习惯来帮助我们成为会反思和自律的作家。 他希望我们在内心封住“内在作家”的嘴巴，以便释放“外在作家”。 也就是说，敦促我们“像正常人一样写作，而不是像诗人，当然也不是心理学家”(同上 3-7)。实际上他是一位心理学家，他的书由美国心理协会出版，他和他们都应该知道。

Silvia’s main suggestions for helping us to write productively are to make writing an everyday process, to adopt strategies for writing during the normal working week, to write with less stress and guilt, and to write more efficiently (ibid. xi-xii). I discuss these suggestions under five headings derived from his How to write a lot: Specious barriers, Motivational tools, Writers’ block, Group support and Style. Here again, as in Part One, I review the ideas contained in one book by linking them with the work of other writers drawn from a range of subject areas.

西尔维娅帮助我们高效地写作的主要建议是: 让写作成为一个每天的过程，在正常工作日采用写作策略，减少压力和负罪感，以及写得更有效率（同上 xi-xii）。 我在五个标题下讨论这些建议，这五个标题来自他的如何写很多: 似是而非的障碍，激励工具，作家的障碍，团队支持和风格。 和第一部分一样，我通过将一本书中的观点与其他来自一系列学科领域的作家的作品联系起来，对其进行了回顾。

Specious barriers

似是而非的障碍

We know that writing is hard but, for personal and professional reasons, many of us want to write a lot more than we currently do. And we usually claim that there are real barriers preventing us from writing a lot. Silvia argues that the four main obstacles we most often cite are specious rather than sound.

我们知道写作很难，但是，出于个人和职业的原因，我们中的很多人都比现状更想写作。 而且我们通常声称，有一些真正的障碍阻止我们多写。 西尔维亚认为，我们经常提到的四个主要障碍似是而非，并不扎实。

The most frequent of these is the time barrier: ‘we can’t find time to write’ or ‘we would write more if only we could find big blocks of time’. The time barrier is quite comforting – it reassures us that we and our colleagues could write a lot more if only conditions weren’t always against us. But time is a specious barrier because we can never find it: ‘finding time is a destructive way of thinking about writing’. Instead we should allot time to write: ‘prolific writers make a schedule and stick to it’. The secret is the regularity of our writing not the number of days or hours we write.

其中最常见的是时间障碍: ‘我们找不到时间写作’或者‘只要我们能找到大块的时间，我们就会写更多’。 时间障碍是相当令人欣慰的——它使我们确信，要不是条件总对我们不利，我们和我们的同事本可以写更多的东西。 但是时间是一个似是而非的障碍，因为我们永远找不到它: “对于写作，找时间是一种破坏性方式”。 相反，我们应该分配时间写作: “多产作家制定一个日程表，并坚持下去。”。 秘密在于我们写作的规律性，而不在于我们写作的天数或小时数。

We should just schedule a time which suits us. Silvia writes every weekday between 8am and 10am. Instead of adopting a wasteful binge writing strategy we should ensure that we write in regular, self-allotted, time slots. And we should defend these writing slots against all-comers just as we protect our teaching slots or as we are supposed to preserve our meeting slots. We can learn to say no: ‘making a schedule and sticking to it is the only way. There is no other way to write a lot’ (Silvia, 2007: 11-18).

我们应该安排一个合适的时间。Silvia在每个工作日上午8点到10点之间写作。与其采取一种浪费的狂欢式写作策略，我们应该确保我们在有规律的、自我分配的时间段内写作。 我们应该保护这些写作时段不受所有来访者的影响，就像我们保护我们的教学时段一样，或者像我们会保护会议时段一样。 我们可以学会说“不” : “制定计划并坚持下去是唯一的办法。 没有其他方法可以写很多东西”(Silvia，2007:11-18)。

Silvia confirms what other writers also say. As noted in Part One, Zinsser stresses the same point: ‘the only way to learn to write is to force yourself to produce a certain number of words on a regular basis’ (Zinsser, 2006: 49, my italics). I know that Ron Barnett – an enviably prolific writer on higher education - writes every evening for an hour before he goes home because I asked him. Another simply states ‘writers are people who write. If you need a place to begin, begin there...you apply ass to chair’ (Rhodes, 1995: 3). Actually we don’t even need a chair – Hemingway, with a bad ass and a bad back and a bad head, often wrote standing up.

西尔维娅证实了其他作家也说过的话。正如第一部分中提到的，Zinsser 强调了同样的观点: “学习写作的唯一方法就是强迫自己定期写出一定数量的单词”(Zinsser，2006:49)。我知道Ron Barnett——一位令人羡慕的高等教育方面的多产作家——每天晚上回家前都要写一个小时，因为我要求他这么做。另一种简单的说法是 ：“作家是写作的人。如果你需要一个地方开始，那就从你把屁股放在椅子上开始。”（Rhodes，1995：3） 实际上，我们甚至不需要椅子——海明威，屁股有毛病，背有毛病和头也不好，经常站着写作。

We would all like more time for writing but very few of us are given large chunks – even sabbaticals - by our institutions. Instead we must make the best use of short bursts of writing since that’s all most of us will get or be able to allot. Such short bursts can be productive if they are regularly scheduled into a writing strategy. Successful short burst writers learn to organize their writing under clear headings, sub-headings and sections so that they can then use their 15-30-60 minute slots efficiently and effectively. Longer sessions – days, weeks, writing retreats, if we can get them - can obviously help us focus more intensively on writing projects and should help our writing and rewriting flourish.

我们都希望有更多的时间来写作，但是我们的学校很少给我们大块儿的时间——甚至是休假时也是如此。因此我们必须充分利用碎片化时间写作，这是我们大多数人得到或能够分配控制的全部时间。如果在写作策略中定期安排这种短时间的写作，就会有成效。成功的短时爆发写作者，学会了在明确的标题、小标题和章节下组织写作，这样就能有效地利用15-30-60分钟的时间段。更长的时间——几天，几周，写作静修，如果可行的话——显然有助我们更集中地专注于写作项目，并且促使写作和修改卓有成效。

However, just as some sessions may be too short for pursuing an idea effectively so long sessions may become tedious and unproductive (see Murray & Moore, 2006: 14-17). The main advice, however, is clear: we could all write a lot more if we allot regular slots.

正如有些时段可能太短，无法有效地深入探究一个想法一样，长时段可能会单调乏味、徒劳无益(见 Murray & Moore，2006:14-17)。然而，主要的建议是明确的: 如果我们分配固定的时段，我们都可以写更多的东西。

The second barrier, or excuse for not writing, is another I need more argument: more analysis, more data, more articles. This argument is used by binge writers who are also binge readers and binge statisticians. The bad habits that stop bingers writing also stop them doing their preliminary reading and reviewing.

第二个障碍，或者说不写作的借口，是我需要作更多（准备工作）的说法：作更多的分析，搜集更多的数据，读更多的文章。 这种观点会被狂欢式作者所利用，他们同时也是狂热的读者和统计学家。 阻止狂欢式作者的坏习惯，也阻止他们进行初步的阅读和评论。

KJ：Binge writers是指那些在很短时间灵感爆发疯狂创作的作者，他们往往在一次爆发后几个月只字不写。

The main way to counter the argument and the bad habit is to suggest that such writers need to see their literature reviews, analyses and descriptions of research methods as vital components of the academic writing process. And as integral parts they are worthy of taking up scheduled writing time. Again it is not a matter of finding more time for more reading and more reviewing of articles. Instead it is a matter using allotted time to complete another aspect of the overall research writing task (see Silvia, 2007: 18-19).

反驳这种说法和坏习惯的主要方法是：建议这类作者把文献综述、分析和研究方法的描述看作是学术写作过程中的重要组成部分。这个不可或缺的部分，值得占用预定的写作时间。同样，这也不是为更多的阅读和评论文章寻找更多时间的问题，而是利用分配的时间来完成整个研究写作任务的另一个方面（见Silvia, 2007: 18-19）。

Other writers call this solution prewriting or adequate preparation or planning but it is, as Silvia suggests, a crucial part of the writing process. Prewriting is, obviously, writing: reading and reviewing relevant literature, generating ideas, analysing data and then outlining and drafting text (Kellogg, 1994).

其他作家称这种解决方案为预写作、充分的准备或计划，但正如Silvia所建议的，它是写作过程中的一个关键部分。显然，预写就是写作：阅读和回顾相关文献，产生想法，分析数据，然后勾勒和起草文本（Kellogg, 1994）。

Adequate preparation is a matter of showing that we have done the ground-work to enable us to enter, in an informed way, the ongoing conversation about, for example, teaching and learning in higher education. Such preparation is a writing process in which we learn from and negotiate with other writers who have addressed similar issues (see Glassick et al. 1997 and Badley, 2002). Planning is, at times, difficult to distinguish from writing. Indeed, in qualitative research, ‘plans for the final product usually begin to take shape during initial analysis’ (Woods, 1999: 23).

充分的准备表明我们已经做了基础工作，使我们能够以一种知情的方式进入对话，例如，高等教育的教学。这种准备是一个写作过程，在这个过程中，我们向其他处理过类似问题的作家学习并与之协商（见Glassick等人，1997和Badley，2002）。有时，计划与写作很难区分。事实上，在定性研究中，"最终产品的计划通常在最初的分析中开始成形"（Woods, 1999: 23）。

Woods identifies four stages in planning: a preliminary, partly systematic, partly randomised, speculative scheme; a provisional working plan; a re-worked plan at first draft stage, which may be repeated in subsequent drafts; and a final tidying-up plan (ibid.). But in our prewriting, preparation and planning for writing we must also be flexible. There must be ‘a productive tension between constructive planning and anarchic, but potentially highly productive, freedom’ (ibid. 25).

伍兹（Woods）发现计划的四个阶段：初步的、部分系统的、部分随机的、推测性的计划；临时的工作计划；在初稿阶段重新制定的计划，在随后的各版草稿中可能会重演；以及最后的整理计划（同上）。但是，在写作前准备和写作计划中，我们也必须具有灵活性。在建设性的计划与无政府的、但潜在的高生产力的自由之间，必须有 "一种富有成效的张力"（同上，25）。

Part of that productive tension is the realization that all writing, personal and professional, also features serendipity as prominently as any kind of rational planning (see Bridges, 1999). But we won’t do any prewriting or preparing or planning or writing unless we ‘set aside daily writing time and make the lined pad or the desktop screen (our) regular companion’ (Germano, 2005: 128).

这种富有成效的紧张关系的一部分是认识到，所有的写作，不管个人的或专业的，也具有特别偶然的幸运，就像任何一种理性计划一样（见Bridges, 1999）。但是我们不会做任何预写、准备、计划或写作，除非我们 "留出每天的写作时间，让衬垫或桌面屏幕（成为我们的）固定伴侣"（Germano, 2005: 128）。

The third specious barrier is also an ‘I need’ argument but this is a more desperate version entitled I need some better kit: a nice chair, a new computer, a better desk, a laser printer, a room with a view? Unfortunately ‘equipment will never help you write a lot; only making a schedule and sticking to it will make you a productive writer’ (see Silvia, 2007: 19-23). All we actually need is pen and paper.

第三种似是而非的障碍也是 "我需要 "的说法，但这是一个更绝望的版本，题为 "我需要一些更好的装备：一把好椅子、一台新电脑、一张更好的桌子、一台激光打印机、一个有风景的房间？不幸的是，设备永远不会帮助你写很多东西；只有制定一个时间表并坚持下去，才能使你成为一个高产的作家"（见Silvia, 2007: 19-23）。实际上我们所需要的只是笔和纸。

On the other hand some of us do have favourite places where we think we write better. Some claim that they can only write in their own study, the university library, the coffee bar, or the pub. Others say they can write almost anywhere at any time: on the train, on a plane, on a bus, even in the street. There’s a story that Thomas Hobbes walked around Paris and wrote ideas down for his Leviathon in a notebook. Although the standard advice is for us to find places where we feel most comfortable writing we should also consider varying where we write. It might be more productive to write somewhere other than at our own desk: writing on a train could be liberating since we would not be tempted to stop writing in order to check our sources – we will get it written even if we don’t get it right (see Cantor & Fairbairn, 2006: 40). Having a brand-new lightweight laptop might help though.

另一方面，一些人确实有自己喜欢的地方，认为在那里写得更好。有些人声称，他们只能在自己的书房、大学图书馆、咖啡馆或酒吧里写作。其他人则说他们几乎可以在任何时间任何地点写作：在火车上、飞机上、公共汽车上，甚至在街上。有一个故事说，托马斯-霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）在巴黎走来走去，在一个笔记本上写下了《列维松》（Leviathon）的想法。虽然标准的建议是去找感觉最舒适的写作地点，但也应该尝试变换写作地点。在办公桌以外的地方写作可能更有成效：在火车上写作可能是一种解放，因为我们不会为了检查资料而停止写作--即使我们没有写对，我们也会把它写出来（见Cantor & Fairbairn, 2006: 40）。有一台全新的轻便笔记本电脑可能有助于此。

Specious barrier number four is the I can only write well when I’m inspired claim. Research has shown that this is both comical and irrational since waiting for inspiration just does not work. In one study those who only wrote when they felt inspired were barely more productive than those who were told not to write at all. Further, ‘forcing people to write enhanced their creative ideas for writing…Writing breeds good ideas for writing’. Struggling writers should ‘get off their high horse and join the unwashed masses of real academic writers’ because ‘successful professional writers, regardless of whether they are writing novels, nonfiction, poetry, or drama, are prolific because they write regularly, usually every day’ (see Silvia, 2007: 23-27). Writing a lot, however, should not necessarily preclude a daily shower, even for busy academics. Waiting for inspiration is a bit like waiting for Godot – she, he or it might never come. So, instead of waiting, we should just get on with the job by learning and regularly practicing the craft of writing (see Palumbo, 2000: 23-25). For, as one contemporary writer makes clear: ‘Amateurs look for inspiration; the rest of us just get up and go to work’ (Roth, 2006: 82).

第四个似是而非的障碍是 "我只在有灵感时才能写好 "的说法。研究表明，这既滑稽又不合理，因为等待灵感行不通。在一项研究中，那些只在感到有灵感时才写作的人，与那些被告知不要写作的人一样低效。此外，"强迫人们写作会增强他们的写作创意......写作会滋生好的写作创意"。挣扎中的作家应该 "从他们的高高在上的马背上下来，加入到真正的学术作家中去"，因为 "成功的专业作家，无论他们是写小说、非小说、诗歌还是戏剧，都是多产的，因为他们经常写作，通常是每天都写"（见Silvia, 2007: 23-27）。然而，写得多，不一定要挤掉每天洗澡的时间，即使是忙碌的学者。等待灵感有点像等待戈多--她、他或它可能永远不会来。因此，与其等待，我们不如通过学习和定期练习写作技巧来继续工作（见Palumbo, 2000: 23-25）。因为，正如一位当代作家明确指出的那样："业余爱好者寻找灵感；我们其他人只是起床工作"（Roth, 2006: 82）。

Motivational tools

动机工具

The three main tools that should help motivate us to stick to our schedules and so become more prolific as writers are: setting goals, setting priorities and monitoring progress.

三个主要工具有助于激励我们坚持时间表，成为高产作家：设定目标、确定优先级、监测进展。

They should also help us avoid writer’s block. To write a lot we need to clarify our writing goals. People who write a lot also plan a lot. This first entails listing our project goals for the next three to six months such as: revising and submitting an article, writing a chapter for a book, starting a new manuscript, reviving a half-written paper. Silvia suggests displaying these goals clearly on a board and then, satisfyingly, crossing each one off when they have been achieved.

这三个工具还使我们避免写作障碍。为了高产，我们需要明确写作目标。作品多的人也会作很多计划。首先列出未来三到六个月的项目目标，例如：修改提交一篇文章，写一本书的一章，开始新创作，继续写了一半的论文。Silvia建议将这些目标清楚地列在黑板上，实现一个目标就满意地划掉一个。

The second step is to set specific, focused, concrete goal for each day of writing such as: write at least 200 words; revise yesterday’s first draft; write three paragraphs of the general discussion for the journal article; add missing references; brainstorm an outline for a new paper; reread reviewers’ comments and begin to make appropriate changes.

第二步是为每天的写作设定具体的重点目标，例如：至少写200字；修改昨天的初稿；为期刊文章写三段一般性讨论；补充缺失的参考文献；集思广益制定新论文的大纲；重读审稿人的意见并开始做适当的修改。

But having a list of mid-to long-term project goals is one thing. We also need to set our priorities – which goals should come first? A typical order of priorities might be: 1.checking page proofs and copy edited manuscripts; 2. finishing projects with deadlines; 3. revising manuscripts to resubmit to a journal; 4. reviewing manuscripts; 5. developing a new manuscript; 6. doing miscellaneous writing.

但是，有一份中长期项目目标的清单是一回事，我们还需要确定我们的优先事项--哪些目标应该放在第一位？一个典型的优先顺序可能是。1.检查页样和抄写过的手稿；2.完成有截止日期的项目；3.修改手稿以重新提交给期刊；4.审阅手稿；5.编写新的手稿；6.进行杂项。

Monitoring progress is, in itself, motivational. It helps us focus on our project goals and keeps them salient. Indeed such self-monitoring will help us sit down and write especially if we actually note down when and what we wrote. Silvia admits to being nerdy enough to note down on a spreadsheet his daily production of words but the key issue is the tracking of progress made rather than the technology used. When we’ve finished a project goal we should be self-rewarding too for immediate rewards – coffee, lunch, a good bottle of something sparkling – are also motivational (see Silvia, 2007: 29-45).

监测进展本身就是一种激励。它帮助我们专注于项目目标，并凸显它们的重要性。事实上如果我们真的记下了我们的写作时间和内容，这样的自我监测会帮助我们坐下来写作。Silvia承认自己是个偏执狂，会在电子表格上记下他每天的字数，关键是对所取得的进展进行跟踪，而不是方式。当完成一个项目目标时，我们应该自我奖励，即时的奖励--咖啡、午餐、一瓶好酒--也是一种激励（见Silvia, 2007: 29-45）。

Good or expert or skilled writers are highly self-motivating because, amongst other things, they take their planning activities very seriously. They plan for a longer time and they do so more elaborately than do less skilled writers. They review and re-assess their plans regularly and consider the reader’s point of view when planning and composing, and they revise their work in line with their global goals and plans rather than merely editing small, local segments (see Wellington, 2003: 39).

优秀的作者、专家或熟练的作者是高度自我激励的，因为，与其他事情相比，他们对计划非常认真。他们作更长期的计划，比水平不高的作者做更精细的计划。他们定期审查和重新评估计划，并在计划和写作时考虑读者的观点，他们根据总体目标和计划来修改作品，而不仅仅编辑琐碎的局部片段（见Wellington, 2003: 39）。

Writer’s block

作者的障碍

‘Academic writers cannot get writer’s block’ because they are ‘not crafting a deep narrative or composing metaphors that expose mysteries of the human heart’ (Silvia, 2007: 45). Instead writer’s block is a dispositional fallacy: ‘writer’s block is nothing more than the behavior of not writing…The cure for writer’s block – if you can cure a specious affliction – is writing’ (ibid. 45-6). So writer’s block only affects those who believe in it whereas ‘scheduled writers don’t get writer’s block, whatever that is’ and are prolific writers because they stick to their schedule whether they feel like writing or not (ibid. 46).

“学术界的作者不可能有写作障碍”，因为他们 "不是在制作一个深刻的叙事，也不是在创作揭露人类心灵奥秘的隐喻"（Silvia, 2007: 45）。相反，作家障碍是一种处置性谬误："作家障碍只不过是不写作的行为......治疗作家障碍的方法--如果你能治疗一种似是而非的痛苦--就是写作"（同上，45-6）。所以作家障碍只影响那些相信它的人，而 "有计划的作家不会有作家障碍，不管那是什么"，他们是多产的作家，因为无论是否想写，他们都坚持计划（同上，46）。

But many academic writers, unlike Silvia, do believe in writer’s block. Here’s an example of a writer who became blocked not because she wanted to ‘expose mysteries’ but because she was afraid of failure: Suddenly I felt like I didn’t know anything. All my confidence withered. I became hypercritical. For every sentence I wrote, I’d think of all the reasons someone would find fault with what I said…I would be a failure (Ely et al.1997: 12).

但许多学术写作者，与西尔维娅（Silvia）不同，确实相信写作障碍。这是一个作者的例子，她受阻不是因为她想 "揭开谜底"，而是因为她害怕失败：突然间，我觉得我什么都不知道。我所有的信心都萎缩了。我变得非常挑剔。我每写一句话，都会设想各种有人会发现我所说的错误的理由......我将是一个失败者（Ely et al.1997: 12）。

An ever-present internal critic or censor is common to many writers as they ‘experience moments of self-doubt, of feeling like an imposter, of knowing that the writing doesn’t communicate the intricacy and complexity of the thoughts swirling through the mind that seem to turn lackluster when put as words on paper’ (ibid). We get blocked when we think we must work out, clearly and in detail, what we want to say before we can write…and get stuck as a result. We struggle to work out an idea logically or scientifically or objectively…and get stuck. We want to be sure before we write…instead of writing when we are not sure. As writers we see no end to our project…and get stuck (see Murray 2002: 163).

许多作家来都有一个无处不在的内部批评家或审查员，当 他们"经历自我怀疑的时刻，感觉自己是个冒牌货，知道写作没有传达出脑海中盘旋的错综复杂的想法，而这些想法在写到纸上时似乎变得乏味了"时出现（同上）。当我们认为必须在写作前清楚而详细地想出想写些什么时，就被挡在那儿......结果就会卡壳。我们努力从逻辑上、科学上或客观上想出一个想法......结果卡住了。我们想在写作前确定......而不是在我们不确定时写作。作为作家，我们看不到项目的尽头......于是卡住了（见Murray 2002: 163）。

Becoming blocked is one thing, getting over or around the block is another. How could we overcome this white-paper phobia? We could, for example:

受阻是一回事，克服或绕过受阻是另一回事。我们如何才能克服这种白皮书恐惧症？例如，我们可以

• realize that producing acceptable writing demands much rewriting

• 认识到写出可接受的文章需要大量改写

• realize that no one process works for everybody

• 认识到没有一个过程对所有人都有效

• just do it, just get something, anything, on paper

• 只管去做，只管在纸上写些东西，不管是啥。

• write about questions, uncertainties, or contradictions in our data or sources

• 写我们的数据或来源中的问题、不确定性或矛盾之处

• look and re-look at what we have to reveal relevance and get writing

• 审视并重新审视我们手头的材料，以揭示其相关性并动手写

• write self-reflective memos to critique our own work

• 写自我反省的备忘录，对自己的工作进行批评

• write analytic memos on what we already have from various vantage points

• 从不同的角度对已有材料写分析性备忘录

• jump start our writing with an anecdote

• 用一个轶事来启动我们的写作

• write a poem

• 写一首诗

• write a scene for a play that would dramatize what we are studying

• 为戏剧写一个场景，将我们研究的内容戏剧化

• start with a critical incident (adapted from Ely et al. 1997: 12-56).

• 从一个关键事件开始（改编自Ely等人，1997年：12-56）。

Other useful suggestions to conquer the writer’s block include: put down rubbish, sort it later; realize that all scholarly writing is first written by the unprepared or the underprepared; write quick drafts; pretend to write a letter to a friend; write morsels and think of your article, book, chapter or thesis as an assembly of morsels; always carry your notebook with you (like Hobbes) and memorialize your best notions at once; conquer your natural or over-educated disdain for the garbage your mind produces; get angry and write out your anger (Watson, 1987: 38-43).

克服写作障碍的其他建议包括：先放下垃圾，以后再分类出来；认识到所有的学术写作都是由没有准备或准备不足的人首先写出来的；快速打草稿；假装给朋友写信；写片段，把你的文章、书、章节或论文当成片段的组合；像霍布斯一样，总是随身携带笔记本（Hobbes前面提到写列维松那位），把你最好的想法立刻记下来；克服你对头脑中产生垃圾的蔑视--天性或过度教育造成的；生气，写出你的愤怒（沃森，1987。38-43).

Rhodes offers another valuable way of overcoming the dreaded block:

罗兹（Rhodes）提供了另一个克服可怕的障碍的宝贵方法：

If writing a chapter is impossible, write a page.

如果写不了一章，就写一页。

If writing a page is impossible, write a paragraph.

如果写不了一页，就写一段。

If writing a paragraph is impossible, write a sentence.

如果写不了一段落，就写一个句子。

If writing even a sentence is impossible, write a word and teach yourself everything there is to know about that word and write another, connected, word and see where their connection leads (Rhodes, 1995: 9-10).

如果连写一个句子都写不了，就写一个词，并教给自己关于这个词的一切知识，再写一个有联系的词，看看它们会将你引向何方（罗兹，1995: 9-10）。

We might even try one or more of these eight strategies for unblocking:

我们可以尝试以下八种策略中的一种或多种：

Freewriting; Generative writing; Writing with a supervisor; Mind-mapping; Verbal rehearsal; Write down all you know or all your ideas about X; Construct a sense of an ending – visualize the completed work; Try a combination of these strategies since no one strategy may work for you (see Murray 2002: 167).

随心写；生成性写作；与导师一起写作；思维导图；口头排练；写下你知道的所有事情或你对X的所有想法；构建一种结局感--想象已完成的工作；尝试这些策略的组合，因为可能没有单独一种策略会对你有效（见Murray 2002: 167）。

Perhaps, despite Silvia, the self-doubt, the fear of failure, the hypercriticism, the loneliness, the fear of rejection and the procrastination are real symptoms of an imagined affliction. Or perhaps writer’s block is instead a signpost, a harbinger, of an impending transition or passage (Palumbo 2000: 17). Perhaps what feels like a block is the ‘balledup tension’ that portends a new period of growth. The tension, the block, may contain various old beliefs, self-concepts, and past writing experiences which need examining if we are to grow as writers. Perhaps we fear that we are not as talented as we had hoped and that our goals as writers will always exceed our gifts. Looking at it this way we might be able to see the block for what it is, ‘a self-protective mechanism’, a problem ‘installed’ in childhood but continuing in adult life. What we call a writer’s block may well be a defence mechanism where we shut down emotionally and suppress our creative instincts in order to avoid the risk of self-exposure and of shameful humiliation. What we need to do is to give ourselves a break, to realize that we can write not despite our writer’s block but because of it (see Palumbo 2000:17-18).

也许，即使西尔维娅这样的大牛，自我怀疑、对失败恐惧、过度批评、孤独、对拒绝的恐惧和拖延，都是这种想象病痛的真实症状。或者说，作家的障碍反而是一个路标，一个预兆，一个即将到来的过渡或通道（Palumbo 2000: 17）。也许感觉上的障碍是预示着一个新的成长时期的 "积蓄的紧张压力"。这种紧张，这种障碍，可能包含了各种旧的信念、自我概念和过去的写作经验，如果我们要成长为作家，就需要对其进行检查。也许我们担心自己的才华不如预期，担心作为作家的目标总是超过我们的天赋。这样来看，我们也许能够看到写作障碍的本质，即 "自我保护机制"，一个在童年时 "安装 "但在成人生活中继续存在的机制。我们所说的作家障碍很可能是一种防御机制，在这种机制中，我们在情感上关闭和压制我们的创造本能，以避免自我暴露和被羞辱的风险。我们需要做的是给自己一个喘息的机会，从而意识到尽管写作不仅仅因为有这些障碍，但部分原因如此（见Palumbo 2000:17-18）。

One of the main suggestions Palumbo makes for helping the writer is the adoption of a buddy system, for ‘what every writer needs is a buddy’ (ibid: 27). The buddy system provides support for learning new skills and facing new tasks. A buddy for the writer would offer clarity in difficult situations, would tell us when we are wrong or out of line, would provide a strong bullshit detector, and would help us feel less alone. For a writer such a buddy would provide a long-term, creative, emotional and intellectual relationship (see Palumbo 2000: 26-28). A different way of putting this is to recommend that all academic writers need a critical friend.

Palumbo提出的帮助作家的一个主要建议是采用伙伴系统，因为 "每个作家需要一个伙伴"（同上：27）。伙伴系统为学习新技能和面对新任务提供支持。作家的伙伴会在困难的情况下，提供清晰的思路，会在犯错或越轨时告诉我们，会提供一个强大的废话探测器，并帮助我们不那么孤独。对于一个作家来说，这样的伙伴将提供一个长期的、创造性的、情感和智力的关系（见Palumbo 2000: 26-28）。另一种说法是，建议所有的学术写作者都需要一个批评性的朋友。

Other suggestions made by Palumbo for overcoming the writer’s block are for us to realize: that ‘writing begets writing’; that bad writing is inevitable but, like manure, is good for growth; that all writing is autobiographical and reveals who we are; that sometimes we should get out of the way and let the writing happen; that even if we can’t be John Updike we can be better writers; that we can fight against that harsh and persistent inner critic who belittles our work; that we can come to see rejection not as personal but as another way of helping us to make our growth as writers our main goal; that writing carries no guarantees and is all about risk; that nothing invigorates our writing like looking at the world with fresh eyes; that writing is like running a marathon in that it requires commitment, delayed gratification, endurance, and will-power; that all writers struggle; and that as a writer you are enough (see Palumbo 2000: 35-241).

Palumbo为克服作家障碍提出的其他值得关注的建议是："写作产生写作"；糟糕的写作是不可避免的，但就像粪便一样，有利于成长；所有的写作都是自传性的，揭示了我们是谁；有时我们应该走出困境，让写作发生；即使我们不能成为John Updike，我们也可以成为更好的作家；我们可以对抗内心深处那个贬低我们工作的严酷而持久的批评者；我们可以与贬低我们作品的苛刻而顽固的内心批评者作斗争；我们可以不把拒绝看作是针对个人的，而是看作是帮助我们把成长为作家作为主要目标的另一种方式；写作没有任何保证，都是风险；没有什么比用新眼光看世界更能激发我们的写作；写作就像跑马拉松，它需要承诺、延迟满足、耐力和意志力；所有作家都在痛苦挣扎；作为一名作家，已经知足了（见 Palumbo 2000: 35-241）。

Finally, Murray maintains that blocked writers construct their own cages. The way out of our own cage is to see and use writing differently. It is through writing that our cage can be opened (Murray 2002: 169). So whether we are in Murray’s cage or facing Palumbo’s psychological block there is one main exhortation: ‘So go. Write’ (Palumbo 2000: 241).

最后，默里（Murray）认为，受阻的作家构建了他们自己的笼子。走出笼子的方法是以不同的方式看待和使用写作。通过写作，才可以打开笼子（Murray 2002: 169）。因此，无论我们是在Murray的笼子里，还是面对Palumbo的心理障碍，都有一个主要的劝告："那就去吧，动手写"（Palumbo 2000: 241）。

Group support

团体支持

Joining or forming a writing group is one of the best ways of reinforcing our good habits and of stopping us from falling back into bad habits such as binge writing. Silvia discusses the Agraphia Group he helped set up at the University of North Carolina to give staff a chance to talk about their writing projects, to share ideas and insights about writing, to help one another set reasonable goals but, mainly, to overcome ‘the pathologic loss of the ability to write’ (Silvia, 2007: 51). Silvia provides five main guidelines for the writing group:

加入或组建一个写作小组，是强化我们的好习惯和阻止我们重新陷入诸如狂欢写作的坏习惯的最好方法之一。Silvia讨论了他在北卡罗来纳大学帮助建立的失语症小组（Agraphia Group），让员工有机会谈论他们的写作项目，分享关于写作的想法和见解，帮助彼此设定合理的目标，但主要是克服 "病态的写作能力丧失"（Silvia, 2007: 51）。西尔维娅为写作小组提供了五个主要准则：

(1) set concrete, short-term goals because such proximal goal-setting enhances motivation. The group needs to commit to meeting these goals before their next meeting: ‘make an outline for my paper’; ‘write the general discussion’; ‘write at least 1000 words’;

设定具体的、短期的目标，因为这种近似的目标设定可以增强动机。小组需要承诺在下一次会议之前达到这些目标："为我的论文制定一个大纲"；"完成概述"；"至少写1000字"。

(2) monitor the group’s progress by writing down each member’s goals in a folder and then stating at the start of each meeting (each week or fortnight) whether they have been met;

监督小组的进展，把每个成员的目标写在一个文件夹里，在每次会议开始时（每周或两周）说明这些目标是否已经实现。

(3) stick to writing goals rather than other professional goals;

坚持写作目标，而不是其他工作目标。

(4) re-inforce good writing habits with informal social rewards – buy the good writers coffee and motivate the bad ones with electric shocks (only joking);

用非正式的社会奖励来强化良好的写作习惯--请优秀作者喝咖啡，用电击来激励落后的家伙（只是开玩笑）。

(5) have different groups for staff and students – they usually have different writing priorities and face different challenges and struggles.

为员工和学生设立不同的小组--他们通常有不同的写作重点，面临不同的挑战和痛苦挣扎。

Writing groups for academics have a relatively long history in the USA (see Gere, 1987) but are not, until recently, much in evidence in the UK. Instead such groups are more likely to be suggested for students who wish to improve their writing. For example, I once suggested that, following my reading of a research report from Harvard, teachers should encourage students to form groups to read and discuss the essays of their classmates:

学术界的写作小组在美国有较长的历史（见Gere, 1987），但直到最近，在英国才有很多。相反，这样的小组更有可能被推荐给希望改善写作的学生。例如，我曾在阅读了哈佛大学的一份研究报告后建议，教师应该鼓励学生组成小组，阅读和讨论同学的文章。

Where students in groups actually do comment on each other’s work, as at Harvard, the students “rave” about the benefits (Badley, 1993: 4).

就像在哈佛大学那样，学生在小组中确实对彼此的作品进行了评论，学生们对益处 "赞不绝口"（Badley, 1993: 4）。

In the same paper I referred to Peter Elbow’s teacherless writing class: It is a class of seven to twelve people. It meets at least once a week. Everyone reads everyone else’s writing. Everyone tries to give each writer a sense of how his words were experienced. The goal is for the writer to come as close as possible to being able to see and experience his own words through seven or more people. That’s all. (Elbow, 1973, quoted in Badley, 1993: 5).

在同一篇论文中，我提到了Peter Elbow的无教师写作课--由七到十二人组成的班级。每周至少开会一次，每个人都阅读其他人的作品，努力让作者感受到他的文字是如何被体验的。目标是让作者尽可能接近地通过七个或更多的人看到和体验他自己的文字。就是如此。(Elbow, 1973, 引自Badley, 1993: 5）。

A similar approach can, of course, be adopted by academics forming their own groups such as the one described in Olson (1995). Here writing is seen as both self-development and self-refinement whilst the role of members is to provide what they regarded as continual realworld feedback. Writing groups are not just a way of improving the writer and her compositional skills but as a way of actually existing in the academy. This particular all-women writing group was seen by its originator as an essential force in pushing her forward as a writer and was a continuous source of support in the otherwise lonely process of composition. Her group met every two or three weeks in members’ houses rather than in the university itself and they didn’t read material in advance but considered it on the day. Usually only two pieces of writing were considered for one hour each. People asked for the kind of feedback they wanted or asked questions they wanted the group to answer.

当然，学术界也可以采用类似的方法，形成他们自己的团体，如Olson（1995）中描述的团体。在这里，写作被看作是自我发展和自我完善，而成员的作用是提供持续的现实世界的反馈。写作小组不仅仅是提高作家和写作技巧的一种方式，而是学术实际存在的一种方式。这个全部由女性组成的特殊写作小组，发起人视之为推动她作为一个作家向前发展的重要力量，并且是原本孤独的写作过程中的持续支持来源。她的小组每两三周在成员的家里而不是在大学里开会，他们不提前阅读材料，而是在当天进行审议。通常只审议两篇文章，每篇一小时。人们寻求反馈或提出希望团体成员来解答的问题。

An early British initiative was promoted in order to enable academics to improve and increase their written output; to develop an incremental rather than bingeing writing process, an approach based on the assumption that productive writing is more likely to be sustained and routine if it is conducted frequently as part of the academic’s regular professional life; to let academics review and adapt their writing processes over six months with support from colleagues acting as critical friends through dialogue; and to change attitudes to writing by increasing enjoyment and removing blocks (see Murray & MacKay, 1998: 1-2). A more recent discussion of writing groups is provided in Murray & Moore (2006: 109-127) and this includes such useful suggestions as describing writing projects to one another, initially working with a facilitator, doing some writing during each meeting, giving and receiving feedback, and reviewing the group at a specified meeting (ibid. 126-7).

英国推广了早期的一项倡议，目的是使学者们能够改善和增加他们的书面产出；发展一个渐进的而不是狂欢式的写作过程，这种方法是基于这样的假设：如果作为学者常规职业生活的一部分经常进行富有成效的写作，那么这种写作更可能是持续的和常规的；让学者们在六个月内审查和调整他们的写作过程，并通过对话得到作为批评伙伴的同事的支持；通过增加乐趣和消除障碍改变写作的态度（见Murray & MacKay, 1998: 1-2）。Murray & Moore (2006: 109-127)对写作小组进行了新的论述，其中包括一些有用的建议，如相互描述写作项目，最初与主持人合作，在每次会议期间进行一些写作，给予和接受反馈，并在指定的会议上对小组进行审查（同上，126-7）。

An Australian example may be described as a research development model (see Lee & Boud, 2003). Their rationale was that of using writing groups as a strategy for research development, creating a new culture of research, scholarship and scholarly writing, allaying academic fear and anxiety about writing, promoting writing as pleasurable and satisfying, developing academic identity, and demystifying the process of writing and getting published. The process involved forming groups of between six and sixteen new or relatively inexperienced writers, meeting either fortnightly or weekly for two hours each time over a period of two years (for new writers) or one semester (for writers with a little experience of publication), encouraging peer feedback and critique of draft texts including conference presentations and articles for publication, focusing on questions of academic identity, the know-how of writing for publication, the practice of writing, the discourse of writing including genre, rhetoric and the grammar of academic English, writing during sessions to build confidence and to produce texts for further work between meetings. The principles which informed the groups were those of promoting mutuality as a rich peer relationship based on the shared common project of scholarly writing, seeing research development through writing as part of the normal business of the academic life, and developing the identity of academics as scholarly writers. The reported outcomes included improved writing and research skills, less fear and anxiety about writing and more pleasure and satisfaction, changed and enriched academic identity and institutional culture, and success in producing material for publication.

澳大利亚的一个例子可以被描述为研究发展模式（见Lee & Boud, 2003）。他们的理由是，将写作小组作为研究发展的战略，创造一种新的研究、学术和学术写作文化，消除学术界对写作的恐惧和焦虑，促进写作成为一种乐趣和满足，发展学术身份，并消除写作和出版过程的神秘性。这个过程包括组建六到十六个新作家或相对没有经验的作家小组，每两周或每周举行一次会议，每次两小时，为期两年（针对新作家）或一个学期（针对有一点出版经验的作家），鼓励同行对文本草案进行反馈和批评，包括会议发言和发表文章。重点关注学术身份问题、为出版而写作的诀窍、写作实践、写作话语，包括体裁、修辞和学术英语的语法，在会议期间写作以建立信心，并在会议间歇期制作文本以进一步工作。这些小组所遵循的原则是：在共同的学术写作项目的基础上，促进相互间丰富的同行关系；将通过写作进行的研究发展视为学术生活的正常业务的一部分；以及发展学者作为学术作家的身份。报告的结果包括写作和研究技能的提高，减少对写作的恐惧和焦虑，增加乐趣和满足感，改变和丰富学术身份和机构文化，以及成功制作出版材料。

KJ：英国和澳大利亚的两个关于社团的例子，啰嗦冗长，我看着都烦：（

In a report on groups I had convened I concluded that, as learning communities, they should encourage: a safe democratic setting for sharing ideas, engagement with the writing process, growth as scholar-writers, organisational change (towards a culture of scholarship and writing), and should provide critical and supportive feedback about one another’s writing. Writing groups may also be seen as communities of practice which provide a theoretical framework of critical conversation about ‘a joint enterprise’ (Wenger, 1998), dialectical tension between action (writing) and reflection (critique), insights into ‘a shared repertoire’ (Wenger, 1998), ‘mutual engagement’ (Wenger, 1998) and ‘a sharing of the culture’ (Bruner, 2002) as well as transformation into (identities as) scholar-writers. They should also help university teachers become more critical readers of all educational texts, become critical writers of their own texts and become more selfcritical about their own educational practice.

在一份关于我召集的小组的报告中，我得出的结论是，作为学习型社区，它们应该鼓励：安全的民主环境来分享想法和参与写作过程，作为学者-作家成长，组织变革（朝着学术和写作的文化方向），并且应该对彼此的写作提供批评和支持性的反馈。写作小组也可以被视为实践社区，它提供了一个 "共同事业"（温格，1998）、行动（写作）和反思（批评）之间的辩证张力的理论框架，对 "共享剧目"（温格，1998）、"相互参与"（温格，1998）和 "文化共享"（布鲁纳，2002）以及转变为（作为）学者型作家的身份的洞察力。他们还应该帮助大学教师成为所有教科书的批判性读者，成为教材的关键作者，并对自己的教育实践进行自我批判。

Of course groups may also become problematic when group loyalty exerts pressure to conform to core beliefs and values, when they limit individual autonomy, when group leaders or factions seek power and control over others and when the rhetoric of community replaces actual criticism, dissent and scepticism. They can be successful when they help strike a balance between autonomy and connectedness (Bruner, 2002), when they increase teachers’ autonomy (ability and freedom) to write as they see it, and when they use connectedness (community and mutuality) to help teachers grow and ‘keep becoming’ (Miller, 1988) as scholar-writers (see Badley, 2005)

当然，当以对群体的忠诚施加压力，要求符合核心信仰和价值观时，当社团限制个人的自主性时，当社团的领导者或派别寻求权力和对他人的控制时，当社团的修辞取代了实际的批评、异议和怀疑时，社团也可能成为问题。当社团帮助在自主性和联系性之间取得平衡时(Bruner, 2002)，当社团提高教师的自主性(能力和自由)并按照自己的想法进行写作时，当社团利用联系性(社区和相互性)帮助教师成长并 “不断成长为”(Miller, 1988)学者作家时，社团就会取得成功(见Badley, 2005)

Overall, the main benefits to members of writing groups are that they constructively pressure binge writers to make and keep to their schedules and that they provide positive reinforcement for those with good writing habits (see Silvia, 2007: 51-57).

总的来说，写作小组成员的主要好处是，他们建设性地给狂欢式写作者施加压力，让他们制定并遵守的时间表，并积极的支持那些有良好写作习惯的人（见Silvia, 2007: 51-57）。

Style

风格

Zinsser’s comments on style (see Part One) may be summarized as: be yourself, write as a person (even as an ‘I’) and pay attention to sentences. Silvia echoes much of this. He, too, argues that ‘academic journals radiate bad writing’ because, first of all, academics try to sound smart by using words like erudite and sophisticated instead of, well, smart. Second, they usually have bad role models – other academics. Third – they don’t spend enough time writing to become good writers. So we have to revise our model of academic writing by becoming less impenetrable and obtuse, less shoddy and pretentious, and this means we must practice a lot more (Silvia, 2007: 59-76).

Zinsser对风格的评论（见第一部分）可以概括为：做你自己，作为一个人（甚至作为 "我"）写作，并注意句子。Silvia对此大有同感，他认为，"学术期刊到处是糟糕的写作"，因为，首先，学者们试图通过使用博杂的词汇，使自己显得聪明。第二，他们通常有坏榜样--其他学者。第三，他们没为成为好作家花足够的时间练习写作。因此，我们必须修改我们的学术写作模式，使之不那么难以捉摸和晦涩难懂，不那么低劣和自命不凡，这意味着我们必须多加练习（Silvia, 2007: 59-76）。

Silvia offers three other bits of advice. First, we should choose good – short, expressive and familiar – words rather than trendy intellectual-sounding phrases and those which make us sound like academic psychologists. Of course we should use good scientific and technical terms but avoid bad words imported from business, marketing, politics and warfare: incentivize, target and transparent. Psychologists (and not just psychologists) love bad words although they would rather use deficient or suboptimal rather than bad. He suggests we use a person and people rather than an individual or individuals, and children, teachers and parents rather than participants. We should drop very, quite, basically, actually, virtually, extremely, remarkably, completely, at all since they are parasitic intensifiers (ibid. 61-65). Second, we should write strong sentences. Instead ‘academics scorn clear, simple sentences’. Third, we should avoid passive, limp and wordy phrases. As academics we want to sound smart and so we drift towards the passive voice. We think it sounds impersonal and scholarly. We write that results are indicative of significance, that the theory is reflective of its historical context and that the data are supportive of the hypothesis. We suffer from ‘ivving it up’ (ibid. 71-75). And we should remember that there are only two things wrong with current academic writing – style and substance (see Rhode, 2006).

Silvia还提供了另外三点建议。首先，我们应该选择简短的、有表现力的、熟悉的词语，而不是时髦的听起来莫测高深和文邹邹的词语。当然，我们应该使用好的科学和技术术语，但要避免那些从商业、营销、政治和战争中引进的坏词如：激励、目标和透明。心理学家（不仅仅是心理学家）喜欢坏词，尽管他们宁愿使用缺陷或次优而不是坏。他建议我们使用一个人和一群人，而不是一个人或几个人，使用儿童、教师和父母而不是参与者。我们应该放弃非常、相当、基本上、实际上、几乎、极其、显著、完全、根本，因为它们是寄生的强化语（同上，61-65）。第二，我们应该写出强有力的句子，而"学者们蔑视清晰、简单的句子"。第三，我们应该避免被动的、软弱的和词不达意的短语。作为学者，我们想让自己听起来很聪明，所以会倾向于使用被动语态，认为这听起来客观学术。我们会写：结果表明了意义，理论反映了历史背景，数据支持了假设。我们患上了支支吾吾症（'ivving it up'）（同上，71-75）。我们应该记住，目前的学术写作只有两点是错误的--风格和内容（见Rhode，2006）。

KJ： Rhode批评的够狠的，就是说现在的学术写作‘一无是处’吗！！！

Writing a lot better?

写得好多了？

In Part One I concluded that Zinsser’s advice should help us to write well by learning to write with respect to the language and to our readers. Will Silvia’s advice help us write a lot more? And will the two sets of advice help us write a lot and write better?

在第一部分中，我得出结论，Zinsser的建议应该有助于我们通过学习尊重语言、尊重读者的方式写好文章。Silvia的建议会帮助我们写得更多吗？而这两套建议会不会帮助我们既高产，又写出佳作？

What, then, are the key lessons from ‘How to write a lot’? First, we need to schedule regular slots for writing rather than try to find time for writing. And we need to defend these writing slots with vigour. Saying ‘no’ to those who would steal writing time is a useful strategy. Second, we should not wait for inspiration: writing generates ideas. Third, setting, clarifying, prioritizing and monitoring our project and daily goals are important if we want to write a lot. Fourth, writers who allot time for writing and then get on with achieving their daily goals don’t get writer’s block. Fifth, critical friends, especially in a writing group, can help support the writer who wants to write. Sixth, we should aim to write in a clear, direct style by using good plain words and simple yet strong sentences.

那么，"如何高产 "的关键经验是什么？首先，我们需要安排固定的写作时间，而不是努力寻找写作的时间。而且我们需要积极捍卫这些写作时间。一个有用的策略是对那些想偷走写作时间的人说 "不 "。第二，我们不应该等待灵感：写作会产生想法。第三，如果我们想高产，设定、明确、优先和监测我们的项目和日常目标是很重要的。第四，为写作分配时间，坚持实现每日目标的作家，不会有写作障碍。第五，挑剔的朋友，特别是在写作小组中，可以帮助想写作的作者。第六，我们应该通过使用平实的词语和简单而有力的句子，力求以清晰、直接的风格来写作。

Overall, however, perhaps the best piece of advice from both Silvia and Zinsser is that we academics would all write a lot better if we wrote as professionals whilst, at the same time, tried to sound like normal people with something worthwhile to say.

不过，总的来说，Silvia和Zinsser的最好建议是，如果我们以专业人士的身份写作，同时又努力让自己听起来像个有价值的普通人，那么我们这些学者都会写得更好。

References

Badley, G. (1993) Improving the quality of students’ writing, The New Academic Summer 1993: 4-6

Badley, G. (2002) Improving the scholarship of teaching and learning, Innovations in Education and Training International, Vol 40 No 3: 303-309

Badley, G. (2005) Using writing groups to help transform teachers into scholar-writers, European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing, Hellenic American Union,

Athens, June 2005

Bridges, D. (1999) Writing a research paper: reflections on a reflective log, Educational Action Research, Vol. 7 No. 1: 221-234

Bruner, J. (2002) Making stories: law, literature and life, London: Harvard University Press

Canter, D. & Fairbairn, G. (2006) Becoming an author: advice for academics and other professionals, Maidenhead: Open University Press

Cheuse, A. & Alvarez, L. (Eds.) (2007) Writers workshop in a book, San Francisco: Chronicle Books

Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M., & Anzul, M. (1997) On writing qualitative research: living by words, London: The Falmer Press

Elbow, P. (1973) Writing without teachers, London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press

Ford, R. (2007) Introduction in Cheuse, A. & Alvarez, L. (Eds.) (2007)

Glassick, C. E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997) Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Gere, A.R. (1987) Writing groups: history, theory and implications, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press

Germano, W. (2005) From dissertation to book, Chicago & London, University of Chicago Press

Kellogg, R.T. (1994) The psychology of writing, New York: Oxford University Press

Lee, A. & Boud, D. (2003) Writing groups, change and academic identity: research development and local practice, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 28 No 2: 187-200

Miller, A. (1987) Timebends: a life, London: Methuen

Murray, R. (2002) How to write a thesis, Buckingham: Open University Press

Murray, R. (2005) Writing for academic journals, Maidenhead: Open University Press

Murray, R. & Moore, S, (2006) The handbook of academic writing: a fresh approach

Maidenhead: Open University Press

Murray, R, & McKay, G. (1998). Writers’ groups for researchers and how to run them.

UCoSDA Briefing Paper 60. Sheffield: UCoSD

Olson, G. A. (1995) Jane Tompkins and the politics of writing, scholarship, and pedagogy, Journal of Advanced Composition, 15, (1) http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/15.1

Palumbo, D. (2000) Writing from the inside out: Transforming your psychological blocks to release the writer within, New York: John Wiley & Sons

Rhode, D. L. (2006) In pursuit of knowledge: scholars, status, and academic culture, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press

Rhodes, R. (1995) How to write: advice and reflections, New York: William Morrow

Roth, P. (2006) Everyman, London: Jonathan Cape

Silvia, P. J. (2007) How to write a lot, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Watson, G. (1987) Writing a thesis: a guide to long essays and dissertations, London: Longman

Wellington, J. (2003) Getting published: a guide for lecturers and researchers, London: Routledge Falmer

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Woods, P. (1999) Successful writing for qualitative researchers, Abingdon: Routledge

Zinsser, W. (2006) On writing well, New York: Collins