On Revision
by Jeff Galin, English Department,
adapted from an article by David Bartholomae
There are significant differences between writing and revising,
which is more than a difference of time or place. The work is
different. In the first case you're working on a subject-finding
something to say and getting words down on paper (often finding
something to say by getting words down on paper). In the second
you're working on a text, on something that has been written on the
subject as it is represented by the words and ideas on the page the
first time through.
Revision allows you the opportunity to work more deliberately
than you possibly can when you're struggling to get ideas together
and words on the page the first time through. It gives you the time
and occasion to reflect, question, and reconsider what you have
written. The time to do this is not always available when you're
caught up in the confusing rush of collecting your thoughts and
composing in an initial draft. In fact, it is not always appropriate
to challenge or question what you write while you are writing, since
this can block thoughts that are eager for expression, divert
attention from the task of getting words on the page and, in extreme
cases, paralyze a writer completely.
A major job for the writer in revising a paper, then, is to
imagine how the text and the ideas represented in it might be
altered, presumably, for the better. This is seldom a simple,
routine or mechanical process. You are not just copying-over
more-neatly.
What, for example, does it mean for a text to be
"better"? Is the better paper simpler, clearer, easier
to read? Is it more complex, dense or difficult? Is
the better paper more assertive or more suggestive?
More elaborate or more straightforward?
Revision allows the writer to imagine the problems
the draft might pose for a reader: Can s/he follow?
Will s/he be convinced? Will s/he understand? Do
connections need to be more explicit?
It allows the writer to consider, for his own
purposes, what s/he has said: What am I doing? What
points am I trying to make? Who
notices such things? Who has such ideas? What are the
counter-examples? The counter arguments? The second
thoughts?
Let's pose the following as some "modes" of revision:
- General revision-This involves the major re-working of a paper,
where sections are rearranged, where sections are added, where
sections receive elaboration or qualification or where sections are
cut and scrapped altogether. Rearranging, adding, elaborating,
subtracting-of all of these it is perhaps hardest for a writer to
throw a passage away, even though he knows it doesn't fit or sounds
dumb or is poorly written. One sign of a skilled writer, however, is
the willingness to cut. Even the best writers write things that are
better off in the wastebasket. No writer is so skillful or fluent
that everything he writes deserves to be read.
- Conceptual revision-This is a kind of revision for which actual
papers do not get reworked, but ideas and positions get rethought,
revised. This kind of work is very similar to general revision,
except that you are not responding to the same assignment in the
second paper as you did in the first. You are working with a new
assignment that allows you to extend what you began in previous
papers or journal entries.
- Local revision-This is usually a matter of tinkering around
with words or sentences, in order to make them more precise,
expressive or elegant. Revision is the time when it is appropriate
to stop and search for the right word. It is the appropriate time to
stop and focus on the connections between sentences or paragraphs.
Reading back over what you have written, reading carefully and
slowly, allows you the opportunity to concentrate on such local
matters as word choice, sentence structure and connectives.
- Editing-This is the work of correcting mistakes, usually
mistakes in spelling, punctuation or grammar. It is the last thing
you do after you've rewritten the paper and are ready to hand in the
final draft. In the past, English teachers may have made the
corrections for you. We will not. Instead, we
will put checks in the margins of your papers to identify an error in
the marked line. It is your responsibility to identify that
error and correct it.
The hard work is locating the errors, not correcting them.
Editing requires a slowed-down form of reading, were you pay
attention to the marks on the page rather than to the sound of a
voice or to the train of ideas, and this form of reading is strange
and unnatural. It must be practiced, and for this reason the job of
correcting mistakes is yours. You cannot pass this course unless you
demonstrate that you can hand in consistently correct papers.
Notice, however, that we make correctness the last concern in the
writing of a paper. Even highly skilled writers make mistakes while
writing. Their minds are on other matters. A paper is made
correct when the formal draft is finished, not while it is
being written.