In my analysis of this paper, Sharon Cogdill takes a very objective point of view .
when it comes to the use of computers in the writing process. The entire structure of writing is broken down and digested piece by piece. Common faults and presumptions are pointed out and examined, although she does defend the role that word processors have played in the history of modern literature. She states that when writers use a computer to put down raw ideas, they come out much fresher and clearer than the act of writing it out on pulp.
Throughout the past two-hundred years, writers have taken many different approaches when it comes to transcribing their interpretations to the rest of the world. Codgill noted the contribution of movable type, automatic printing, and other aspects of the modernization of literature. The fact is there will always be a difference of opinion about which of the two forms is superior. Although this is an ambiguous conflict, it is a fact of life and must be dealt with.
Cogdill's writing process is quite similar to my writing process. She stated that when she began writing, she would write whatever she could and then go back to cut and paste. Now Cogdill writes less and goes slower to not have "masses of words to untangle later.
• When Cogdill learned to revise properly she would reread her writing that she thought were finished to add in new ideas. Cogdill points out that although all the writers that she knows use the computer, they print out their documents to revise them by hand. One reason Cogdill chooses not to use the computer to write because when revising you can't tell if you've left out any ideas or if you need to change paragraphs, sentences, or words. Also when using the computer to write, you can't see the entire document in front of you and a writer needs to see the structure of their writing. Another reason is when your document is printed out, all you see is the cleanliness of the paper, you don't see all the deletions and insertions.
