Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Push Hands: Balancing Resistance & Revision
I have never passed up the chance to re-vise anything I have written. I seldom turn things in that I feel are 100% done---no matter how long I spent writing it, or how good I felt turning the paper in. I always know, that on some level, it can either be revised, sometimes re-written, or in need of just a very few minor changes. The only time I felt completely great about a paper I had written, was when I actually had a friend edit it. But in most cases, I don't have that kind of time---though it would be great if I did! If I ever did feel weary taking someone else's advice, I'd be inclined to try it out anyway. I recently turned in an 8-page mid-term for one of my literature classes, and the teacher said she wanted me to make some revisions to it. In fact she said, she wrote what she wanted me to revise on the paper itself. All I had to do was type what was on the paper! I haven't gotten the paper back, but am I going to complain? No. I'm just going to make those revisions. She's probably read thousands if not more papers in her lifetime, so I think of it only as an opportunity to see how it is other people write---a chance to experience writing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with that last statement, that the teacher has probably read thousands of papers and most likely knows what she is talking about. I also love to revise my work, as well as the work of others'--I don't feel comfortable turning in a paper that I don't feel is my best. However, I understand what Skinner is saying about resisting revision. There have been times when I've recieved suggestions on what to change about my papers--I take these suggestions into consideration, but oftentimes, I don't use them. I sometimes (but seldomly) become indignant, thinking that if I were to change what they asked me to, the paper would lose something crucial, such as my voice. Like Skinner said, "Sometimes resistance to revision is resistance to what the writer recognizes, even if perhaps only intuitively, as bad advice." So it is our job to recognize what would take away our voice, as well as to recognize what is going to enhance it.
ReplyDeleteWhat you state is very true, and I completely agree with iwish789. Yet there is some pearl of truth in what Skinner says as well- I think as creative writers, it is important to hold on to our intuitive voices, and that which we hold to be a part of ourselves in our writing, we must stick to, otherwise we lose the inherent balance that makes up our own unique writing styles.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting look at how one writes versus how an editor might have one write is to look at a few pieces by John Cheever, versus those pieces which were edited.
I understand how you feel about revision. I also feel like it is a necessary process to any writing that is planned on being turned in, whether in a classroom setting or in the publishing world. I also agree with what you said about trying out someone else's ideas for revision, and that you felt your teacher had a new perspective and more experience reading papers. It's important to see what we can learn from others through their take on our writing.
ReplyDeleteit's interesting that most are agreeing on how revision is a neccessary step in writing and how one should take it into consideration, but im gonna be honest here, im one of those people that hates revising things, often they tourment me enough as i am writing them i dont want to do it any further favors by re-reading my crap, though i should, and this piece offered a lot of good advice that i hope to take on.
ReplyDeleteit was interesting reading Skinner's take on revising. another writing teacher talked about the "workshop poem or story" that is revised to death by the writer and his peers and you can tell it has had all the life sucked out of it. sometimes you just have to trust your writing abilities (your instinct) and let your writing be.
ReplyDeleteAny time I turn in or share a rough draft, I can't help but feel that it would be incredibly arrogant of me to expect people to respond well to it before I've spent time cleaning it up. I feel like writers who publish their unrevised works have to earn that right by somehow proving their ability. I guess that speaks more to my self-esteem than anything else.
ReplyDeleteI would certainly never suggest that my method of frenzied revision might be right for anyone but me. In fact, more and more, I am wondering whether it is even right for me.
With so much practice revising, I don't have as much fluency in shitting out first drafts as I'd like. I sweat and strain and struggle to wrestle my ideas to the page but then I can barely restrain myself from polishing them obsessively. Rereading every sentence out loud for flow and rhythm, for ways to omit unneeded words and say more precisely what I mean. I don't know whether it works but I think it's the thought that counts. A little polish shows my respect for my readers.
Anyway, what I was trying to get at is that I am totally confounded when people pay attention to their egos and ignore criticism. Don't you need to know how audiences react and whether they understand you? Why bother writing anything down if it's just for you? Why not just keep it up in your head?
I hope that doesn't sound rude. That kind of confidence is actually something I wouldn't mind more of for myself.
Criticism is hard to take sometimes, but good for you for seeing it objectively.
ReplyDelete