Abstract of Rose Article..

        The article introduces and analyzes ten UCLA writers of different academic, racial and class origins – five with writer’s block, five without – with intentions of understanding the complexities (emotional or otherwise) regarding this phenomenon that separates the two groups.  Although these groups are separated by the writer’s block phenomenon, they are closely related to adaptation and mutability to overcome that phenomenon.

        In the study, it was ultimately determined, aside from the possible emotional angst, fear, or “insecurity” (389) all experienced in varying degree, that the ones with writer’s block subjected themselves too closely to traditional writer rules and techniques making their task in completing the composing process too stringent and rigid, while the others were able to adapt their learned stratagems to offset and trounce the task of writing.

        The former is characterized by a “set” way of instruction because their writing reflects a pre-designated way of thinking, functioning, and understanding.  Writers with this philosophy often get hung up certain rules in writing like: “Always Grab Your Audience,” “ungrammatical sentences aren’t of any use,” or as Rose mentions, “’papers must…present an array of images, ideas, ironies gleaned from the literature under examination’ (395)”, and the latter is characterized by a “heuristic” way of instruction inciting more flexibility, freedom, and leeway in writing tactic and perception.

        Despite their contradictory approaches to composing, both problem-solving structures are in concordance: the introductory period, the processing period, and the solution period. In addition to their similar framework in approach is their mutability as well.  The group with writer’s block may bounce from one conventional rule to the next, despite one’s reluctance to change the paper’s subject “forcing the assignment to fit” (395).  The other group, “The Non-blockers” (396), will simply bend these already-existing rules of the composing process and will express much less concern about rules opposing common sense or past experience.

In short, both groups are separated by what occurs in the composing process, while the same groups are conjoined by purpose in completing that process.