Reconciling Revision

As a writer, realistically we realize we’re going to revise our pieces. The process however can be very different depending on the type of writer we are. For some the revision step is completed in creation and construction. One-draft writers revise as they write, with little to no revaluation only progression forward as the piece is completed. For one-draft writers, revision isn’t considered a major focus of the piece because they come into the draft with a set direction, and the piece is constructed around this set plan. I personally believe academic writing, and the structure of academic writing pushes a one-draft format. With most academic writing I feel confined, and almost caged into a topic with little to no creative license.

Whereas, for multi-draft writer’s revision is the construction. They create a framework as they write, and then return to the piece over and over building upon the initial framework, altering it, and allowing the piece to change as it develops. The changes the piece of writing can face can be minimal to a complete reconstruction of the writing and these changes can be done in a short period of time or with significant lapses in time between revision of drafts. For me I find myself a multi-draft writer the more engaged and connected to the piece I feel. If I enjoy writing the piece, I’m more engaged and more willing to develop the drafts and work on them.

Although my dislike for academic writing because of the feeling of a rushed confinement to a linear structure, many appreciate the one-draft nature academic writing provides and they carry this structure into other types of writing. For most one-drafters, revision is done in the moment as they are writing their piece. The lack of returning to the work and reevaluation of what’s written leavers the writer with less reflection but a solid completion. In Harris’ article, “Composing Behaviors of One or Multidraft Writers,” a major point of interest or significance for me is when she writes, “The one-drafters move quickly to decisions while composing, and they report that once they are done with a paper, they prefer not to look back at it, either immediately re-read it or at some future time, to think about revising it.” (Harris). For typical one-draft writers, they work the piece onto paper, and once they reach the end its reached its final point of completion. As I writer, this is where I differ from a one-draft structure particularly when I’m writing about a topic, or style I’m passionate about. Once I reach the end of the paper, I want to go back, review, re-read, and reevaluate my creative decisions rather than having the finality of closure. This fast pace and quick decision time I think allows for more limited organic development, because one-drafters have already committed to a direction before they even start writing.

I never considered revision and the importance it played in the writing process until taking the revision theory class last semester, and Murray’s internal revision piece really struck a chord with me is the importance of discovery within revision. Discovery dictates how we write, what we write, and it helps us develop a directional heading within our writing. I think often that one-draft writers miss this opportunity because since the revise as they write, it limits the amount of discovery and the organic nature of the writing process in some ways. At least I know that’s definitely the case in my own writing, because the less investment into the discovery process, the less revision I do, and the less revision the more linear and less developed I find the draft. Although I may never feel truly done with a piece, I do know however that if I’m no invested in the piece, and I don’t enjoy the piece the less I’m willing to discover about it and the less I feel connected to it.