On Revising

I love revising.

I love reworking my own work, I love reworking other's work. I went to school to be an editor. I could revise stuff for hours. I'm the reason that there is a publishing stage in the writing process. Otherwise, nothing would get done. Revisions would recur endlessly.

I actually get upset, for example, if people don't have any comments, or say some hyperbole such as "I wouldn't change a word!" Because, if you wouldn't change a word, you might as well have written it.

I love the discourse that happens in revision, the relationship between the author and audience, whether it is internal or external. The tug and pull. The compromises, the mutual understandings.

A lot of satirists have lampooned workshopping. We got a handout in class that did so, showing how one of Emily Dickinson's poems would be torn to shreds. While they definitely have a point, I think they miss something as well.

Would Dickinson say that that poem was perfect? If yes, you're lying. Simply from the fact that she wrote additional poems, you know the poem isn't perfect. It may have been publishable, it may have been complete in itself, it may even be great, but it wasn't perfect.

If no, what's the harm in workshopping it?

Of course, in school classrooms, workshopping and revising have a different feel. They are a neccesary part of the writing process in the real world (rarely do you not get a chance to revise, and rarely, if you're resourceful, do you not get another pair of eyes on something before it's published), but in the academic world, with it's essay tests and SATs and so on, it's lacking. We have to teach students not just to revise, but to revise while they write. This is one reason why I do not like handing in drafting, especially at once, with the final draft. The teacher should be part of the process, in this case, not just the evaluator of it.

MadS