WRT333

Editing
Used with assignment 6

Editing Your Own Drafts

We live in an age where electronic word processing is the dominant technology for writing. The ease with which text can be drafted, moved, reformatted, and saved means that not only is it easier to create, but it is also far easier to alter and refine it. As a writer, there is no excuse for not spinning through multiple drafts of a text, often a dozen or more variations before an article is good enough to be labeled "finished."

I've suggested that as you work through an individual draft, you might want to consider Professor Vaughn's Purpose Analysis as an audience-centered guide to editing based on a focus on intended purposes for a clearly defined reader.

Fowler and Aaron (2004) suggest that editing begins with understanding the root of the word revise, which is "re-see." There are two possible sets of eyes with which to re-see: your own and an editor's. If you are editing your own work, you need to acquire a fresh vision, one that is different from the vision you used as you reached inwardly to discover the intentions and images you used to construct your first draft. The purpose analysis is one way to create a fresh vision, attained by focusing on the needs of the reader. The critical need is to distance yourself from the work. This may require taking a break (a few hours, a day or two) after finishing the first draft, asking someone to read and react to your draft, looking at a printed copy instead of one displayed on a screen, or reading. A more mechanical approach would be to follow a checklist. While the purpose analysis checklist does this, it is primarily concerned with content analysis. Fowler and Aaron suggest reviews for several possible purposes, any or all of which may apply to your writing:

• Purpose: Analysis overall purpose and internal consistency with that purpose (again, see Purpose Analysis)
• Thesis: What is the central idea, where is it clear in the paper, and does the paper remain related throughout to the thesis?
• Structure: Are the points of the paper (the topics of paragraphs or sections) clear and supportive of a thesis?
• Development: How useful, clear, and strong are the supportive arguments and details?
• Tone: Is there an emotional tone to the paper? Is it appropriate for the purpose of the paper and the readership?
• Unity: Are all the parts (each paragraph, each sentence, each clause) contributing to the core purpose / thesis? Are there omittable digressions?
• Coherence: Do ideas flow? Is the paper smooth and graceful as it moves between topics or arguments?
• Title, introduction, conclusion: Does the title match the paper? Is the introduction effective in engaging the reader? Is the paper over when the conclusion is reached? (see The Lead)

You might also weigh the value of a checklist for style and readability. Again, Fowler and Aaron offer a suggestion:

• Clear? (are intended meanings conveyed), especially these:
  • Exact language
  • Parallelism
  • Clear modifiers
  • Clear reference for pronouns
  • Complete sentences
  • Punctuation to separate sentences or sentence elements
• Effective?
  • Check for words to engage the reader, places where words are choppy, wordy, or dull.
  • Emphasis of main ideas
  • Smooth and informative transitions
  • Varying lengths between sentences (quality of euphony)
  • Concise, appropriate language?
• Correct?
  • Spelling
  • Pronoun forms (subjective vs. objective)
  • Verb forms, endings, irregular verbs, and helping verbs
  • Verb tenses (consistent?)
  • Agreement between subject and verb (number, gender, etc.)
  • Agreement between pronouns and antededents (number, etc.)
  • Fragments
  • Other elements of punctuation (apostrophe for possession, etc.)

Editing Other People's Writing

As an editor of someone else's work, remember that you are serving two simultaneous masters. You want to be helpful and supportive to the writer. You also want to prevent poor or otherwise faulty writing from becoming part of the larger literature. You are both guardian and welcomer at a gate of publication.

Fowler and Aaron suggest that you remember that as editor, you are not the writer. Keep that in mind as you limit your written comments on a draft someone else has written:

• Understand. Paraphrase or write out what it is that you understand if there is a passage whose meaning is in question.
• Prioritize. Go for the larger concerns, the more important issues. Don't focus too much on grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc., unless you have been told to do so.
• Be specific. Try to explain why you are confused, why you disagree, etc.
• Be supportive. Be honest.
• Write your comments as you go.
• Make clear links between extended comments and the place on the paper where they apply.
• Comment respectfully and clearly

Editing and Proofreading Marks

All major style guides include standard marks used to indicate problems on drafts. Learn their meaning and use them.

Here is one example. Google "editing marks" for similar pages.

Reference

H. Ramsey Fowler and Jane E. Aaron. 2004.. The Little, Brown handbook. 9^th ed. Pearson-Longman