Scrutiny and procrastination, a one word summary of the advice from Bunn's and Murray's essays respectively. While Mike Bunn's piece gives good instruction on how to analyze text, it did not leave an impression quite in the same way that Donald Murray's did. Any author that gives permission to procrastinate as part of the creative process gets a thumbs up in my book. However, it wouldn't be fair to compare the two essays as one being better than the other as both essays have their merits.

Mike Bunn goes into quite a bit of depth on the technique of reading like a writer, but the essay seemed to me that it was just another take on Aristotle's rhetorical triangle. The long list of questions he gave as an example for readers reminded me of all the work on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos from English 101 last semester. How does the author write that makes him look credible, and is he even credible? Is the information logical and does it evoke an emotion in the reader? What I did find thought-provoking what his point on "writerly choices".

"The goal as you read like a writer is to locate what you believe are the most important writerly choices represented in the text - choices as large as the overall structure or as small as a single word used only once - to consider the effect of those choices on potential readers …show more content…
What that brought to mind what the author Chuck Palanuick, especially in his book "Fight Club". I admire how well he does details in his books and the way he chooses words I could never think of for descriptions. Even more impressive is he never uses phrases such as "Character A thinks Character B is interesting". He goes into detail that lets the reader draw that conclusion for themselves and I wish I could do that better in my own