Ziegler, Alan. " 'Midwifing the Craft' -- Teaching Revision and Editing." Creative Writing in America.

This chapter touches upon two different perceptions of what is revision, both of which are important in the creative process: "The word editing often has a different definitition in academic circles than it does in the publishing world. For example, in The Confident Writer, Constance J. Gefuert writes that 'when you edit, you consider the surface features of writing -- grammar, usage, spelling and mechanics,' and states that editing 'should almost always come last' (1988, 17). But for publishing writers, this definition stands for a subdivision of editing called 'copyediting.'

'Editing,' in the larger sense, refers to a variety of means by which one or more colleagues help to make a piece of writing as good as it can be; the editing process can begin before a word is written, and end with the final set of galleys. Editors can help writers to conceive, shape, and revise their work" (209).

In other words, there's surface clean-up, when we pay attention to conventions, and then there's actual revision or editing, when we make sure we've said what we meant to, and that our message is getting across in the best way we know how to do it.

Ziegler says there's several ways to egg on revision in literary feedback. Some are more heavy-handed than others:

1. reactive: a general, unsubstantiated response, such as "This paragraph is great" (210). I like to use the all-encompassing "eh?" when I just don't get it. While some students don't like this because they want a professor to be more hands-on, to tell them what to do, to "fix" their writing, I think it's better that they think through the writing by themselves and decide what needs to be done to make it more clear.

2. Descriptive: "Describes what the writer is doing, positively or negatively -- 'I can't figure out where the flashbacks are taking place, and the dialogue is too convoluted." It's up to the writer to figure out what to do about it" (210). This might be more ideal for a beginning writer, who might not be able to identify what craft issue is at stake from a reactive comment.

3. Prescriptive: Offers concrete suggestions for change, like getting rid of a character (211). I don't personally have much use for this, becaue I feel it puts me too much into a student's writing, although I'll do it occasionally if I feel a writer is really struggling or is close to making a connection but is not quite there yet. I've had many prescriptive ideas offered to me in my own work, and often I'll find them too heavy-handed to take seriously, as the well-intentioned offer of advice more often goes to that person's style of writing or what (s)he likes to read, rather than what I'm trying to do with the piece. But sometimes it can be brilliant.

4. Collaborative feedback: editors or teachers actually contribute words to a text, rewriting sentences or offering substantive additions (211). Again, I feel that's a bit much for any type of creative work, although I'm more comfortable with it if it happens in a workshop setting than from me in a one-on-one consultation. If it happens when one of many workshop members offers collaborative advice, it just feels more like a suggestion than a "Here, you must do this or your work won't be successful" kind of feedback.

I think the most important information Ziegler offers in this chapter is that, no matter how you offer advice on revision, you need to remember to remain upbeat about it, and tell the student what is working well in their writing as well as suggestions for revision. We are all unsure about our writing, and it is easy enough to be discouraged -- and even to stop -- to write based on hard criticism. My young niece wrote a good short story in elementary school -- very good for her age group -- and her English teacher, who obviously doesn't have a creative writing background -- took it apart on conventions rather than what the message was. I'm going to find that guy and strangle him, because now my niece doesn't think she can write.