Brendan Donohue

English 123 D

Prof. Cripps

April 24th, 2018

The Role of Revision

Revision is generally understood in the literary world as the practice of amending or altering a written piece in an effort to improve or refine. Though conceptually simple, the practice has many depths and is only becoming more cumbersome according to author Craig Fehrman. Fehrman discusses the studies of Hannah Sullivan on how evolving technologies have made literary revision a more involved process. Also on the topic of revision, authors Richard Miller and Ann Jurecic thoroughly evaluate the intricate steps of revision and what the process entails. In an effort to thoroughly understand the process of revision and how it has evolved over time, I will be discussing the ideas of Miller and Jurecic in context of Fehrman’s history of revision.

Fehrman’s earliest analysis begins with famous poet John Milton. Milton’s revisions involved loose sheets of paper, scribbling out words and adding sentences in the margins of his papers (Fehrman). In the eyes of Miller and Jurecic these revisions would be categorized as “tinkering away at surface corrections”. Revisions being kept to a minimum was often a product of the author’s style as well as the climate of access to literary appliances. Drafts of publication were kept to a minimum due to the price of paper and the incommodious process of riding by horseback to procure a print draft. “In the age of Shakespeare and Milton, paper was an expensive luxury; blotting out a few lines was one thing, but producing draft after draft would have been quite another” (Fehrman). However, the next generation of greats such as Hemingway and Eliot produced their works under slightly more advantageous circumstances due to the invention of the new publishing technology.

Writers were no longer shackled to tinkering due to the cost of revisions. New technology increased printing rates by 800% in Britain over a thirteen year period (Fehrman). With the new mass production of material, came a new wave of mass revision. “… writers like Hemingway and Eliot insisted on not having just a second chance, but a third, fourth, and fifth” (Fehrman). During this period of literary renaissance Hannah Sullivan describes writers splitting into two groups, those who “reduced their work massively, and [those who ] expanded it massively” (Fehrman). These technological advance allowed writers to make a multitude of new moves during the revision process. Miller and Jurecic highlight two of these major moves as being “rethinking” and “restructuring”.

“Rethinking” is a process that can occur during any stage from first draft to final draft. It most often occurs early in drafting when ideas and position are put under scrutiny and writers question their original position. “Rethinking motivates us to revise globally- to rework our ideas rather than to tinker away at surface corrections” (Miller and Jurecic). Meanwhile, restructuring is a process which is includes filling in gaps of research,  refining attention of argument, and providing the appropriate amount of supporting information (Miller and Jurecic). Hemingway was evidence of a writer who used his drafts to engage in the process of “restructuring”. It was his philosophy that his work was strengthened by simplification, and describes this through his “principle of the iceberg”: “There is seven-eighths of it under the water for every part that shows. Anything you know you can eliminate and it only strengthens your iceberg” (Fehrman).

Writing has evolved immensely over just the past few centuries. Most of this is attributed to the evolution of technologies used to facilitate drafts and published works. With the ability for authors to more easily procure writing appliances it can be theorized that the face of revision will continue to change and become more thorough and possibly even automated.

 

Literature Cited

Fehrman, Craig. “Revising Your Writing Again? Blame the Modernist.” Boston Globe. 30 June 2013. Web.

Miller, Richard E., and Ann Jurecic. Habits of the Creative Mind. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016.