Brendan Donohue

English 123 D

Prof. Cripps

May 1st, 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 evaluate the process of revision and how it has evolved over time, this paper will evaluate the relationship writers have had with revision throughout the evolution of literary technology.

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 technologies.

By the 20th century writers were no longer using quill and ink to pen their masterpieces. Although writers such as Hemingway still preferred to commence their writing process on paper, they now had the ability to type their works by typewriter. This evolution in technology also enabled writers to revise their works more thoroughly. 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 of writing 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). New technology such as the typewriter allowed writers to slow down, and it was described by Fehrman as being an invaluable change in the revision process. However, the continued development in literary utilities has not benefit writers so greatly in the 21st century.

Fehrman describes technology surrounding writing having shifted in the last 30 years, and with it changes in our ideas on writing and revising have been congruent. In his piece Fehrman quotes Hannah Sullivan on how she believes the computer has impacted the way writing and revising occurs. “The ideal environment for revision is one where you can preserve several different versions of text” (Sullivan). Fehrman goes on to say “With only one-in-progress draft on a computer, lose lose the cues that led the Modernist to step back from their work and revise it.” The claims of Sullivan and Fehrman seem to allude to the fact writers are regressing in the way they revise and edit their pieces. Practices such as “restructuring” and “rethinking” promoted by Miller and Jurecic have fallen out of favor due to newer automated literary technology. The computer has offered some benefits though, such as word processing technology that checks for spelling and grammar, as well as instant sharing of drafts across the globe. Despite these attributes however, evidence seems to show thorough revision of literary works has declined since writers have moved away from working with hard copies.

In following the history of revision from quill to computer, technology has had a significant impact on how writers interact with their works. The reality that writers are no longer are no longer scribbling in the margins is undoubtedly a positive advancement. I believe writers will find a middle ground on how the interact with their works when it comes to revision and editing. Until then, it will be most beneficial for writers to slow down in their process and work with hard copies as Sullivan proscribes. Regardless of the direction and rate at which technology changes moving forward, it will forever be beneficial for writers to engage in the processes of “rethinking” and “structuring” instead of simply “tinkering”.

 

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.