Revision.

Upon first glance through the first 5 pages or so, I hated the dry syntax. It's as if a love sick girl was writing fan fiction from the 1890's. I had yet to see how this pertained to anything we would need to learn about revision. 

However, upon later reading she talks about how the work you create sounds foreign, even alien, when reading it again. That we must separate ourselves from the oddity of our own writing, and make the edits that are logical and without any sort of relativity or partial judgement to the paper. For if we do, we are harming ourselves as writers. And it's to this contention that she derives the point of what revision is. How can we remain impartial but change partial pieces of our paper? Does a whole new draft constitute it's own existence by "improving" off of a previous? 

In my opinion an artist must be true to himself, for when his art is put up for the world to see he will reap criticism regardless of how flawless the product. As long as the artist remains steadfast, and stands for what he believes in, never faltering on his own creation's ability, will he ever be a true artist. Each public work is a design that cannot be undone once published. To revise or redo or redraft in my opinion only waters down the original message, the original feelings and emotions poured into the paper or video or picture or art, and weakens what the you at that moment felt and created. 

As for sake of academia, revision and redrafting in necessary. Most of us didn't come to school to be artists and have to suffer with this sort of repetition. Maybe it is for the best and creates a more scholarly paper, but who am I to pass judgement as more than a normal student in a general writing class.