“Not everything we first write down is perfect,” explains Obert Skye in his lecture “The Magic of Revision,” and thus arises the need to revise. Imagination is typically credited for the quality of notable written works—but the speaker believes that it is because of revision.

The goal of writing is to express a point or share an idea. We revise to tell the best story, to properly express an idea. We write for our own benefits and revise for the benefit of others because it makes our ideas clearer, more substantive, and therefore worth sharing.

Mr. Skye argues that revision is the most powerful tool for great writing. I heartily disagree. I believe having something to say in the first place is the greatest factor of whether a piece of writing will be great. Every worthy book or article that has ever been written was written because the author had something important to say. A writer is like a sculptor, and a sculptor can’t carve a masterpiece from a block of marble unless the marble was there in the first place. You can rewrite a novel as many times as you like, but it won’t stand without a spine.

These feelings are based on my experiences tutoring high school kids in essay writing. It is unfortunate that young writers often don’t trust their own intellect, instincts, or opinions enough to make any form of declaration. It takes the proper amount of time and encouragement to put this pattern to rest.

In my experience, low achievers have internalized the criticisms received from instructors over the years and incorporate them into their identities. They get incorrect answers on exams, therefore their answers never seem to be right, therefore they are always wrong about everything, and therefore there is no point in ever guessing at anything about anything—especially in a scholastic environment. High-achievers who write poorly are often able to articulate the technical approach to their writing but can’t seem to explain the feelings behind it.

I think it’s because many young people confuse humility with neutrality. Forming a stance requires a certain courage in conviction and the willingness to risk being wrong. Young people have hypersensitive egos which are erroneously founded on a misguided standard of righteousness. Being public about a belief or idea leaves them vulnerable to censure, which they dread more than anything else in the world.

Even a neutral informative piece requires a thesis. A biologist writing a research paper on osmosis needs to be first comfortable asserting the existence of cell membranes.

Only once these basic psychological barriers are overcome can the writer reap the benefits of effective revision—which I consider to be an advanced writing skill. To revise, a writer needs the ability to audit their ideas with objectivity and circumspection. The writer needs to be clear about what his or her goal was in the first place, or there will be no standard to hold the piece up against for comparison. The writer also needs the maturity to understand that mistakes in the first copy are not a definitive appraisal of one’s skill as a writer.

To overcome this academic inferiority complex, I encourage my students to (within the scope of the topic) find something they are against. I find that it is easier to articulate what they are against, rather than what they are for. Humans readily determine what they are against based on protective instincts evolved over millions of years. It is more natural for us to defend than to affirm.

Disagreement triggers a fight-or-flight response: “This perspective is a threat to me and my values, and here is why.” It is fuel to the fire—the fear of our ideals being in danger—that provokes us to stand and fight for our point of view, even if it might be exhausting and socially risky. I believe this leads to masterful writing.

My students then ask, “How could I possibly know which [concepts in assigned topic] I have a problem with, if I don’t even know anything about it?” I believe they couldn’t be more right about that. It would be unreasonable to expect, especially for us adults pursuing higher education, that we will only ever have to write within topics they are familiar with. Ignorance is only damnation if you let it stop you. Research is the only cure.

That’s not to say I’m immune to the feeling. I approached a recent assignment in this writing class—the Workview/Lifeview Essay—with a similar level of contempt and apprehension. I don’t think it’s particularly fair to expect a budding young mind to summarize their growing views on life in a three-page paper—much less to do so eloquently. For me it went something like this:

“Hey [insert student name], what’s the meaning of your life?”

“Thesis: Hell if I know.”

“Great! Cram that into three pages and I’ll grade you on your coherence!”

I think that is the distinct purpose of finding two sources to disagree with. When we disagree with something and explain why, it serves the dual purpose of igniting the fight-or-flight response and forcing us to distinguish our associated values.

My “research” for the Workview/Lifeview Essay was mostly a preponderance of my dissatisfactions with life. It felt natural to cite motivational speakers for both of my required sources because they spend their careers proclaiming their work and life views—all I had to do was I listen and wait until something angered me.  I dislike the quasi-religious obsession with “productivity” and “being an excellent workhorse.” I reflected on the pain of being an idealist in a realistic world, and the pain of watching my father waste his life. I was reminded of my disgust for settling and my love of philanthropy apart from living to please others. So, I wrote my thesis on the way I feel pulled between wanting to grow to be a hero and a king one day, and my doubts on whether anyone can really be both.

To revise I included more concrete examples, both literary and anecdotal, to substantiate my arguments. I also strengthened the narrative of my piece by making it more personal and specific. My attempts at revision helped me to fortify my arguments, but I don’t think they could have helped if the arguments weren’t there in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Skye, Obert. The Magic of Revision. YouTube, TEDx Talks, 29 Apr. 2016,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqK6-ePxPa8.