🚀 go-pugleaf

As a writer, and as a student attending a masters program in
professional writing, I find it difficult to believe that some people
would reject the value of rewriting completely, rather than looking at
cases where it -might- not be of value.

Writing mirrors the thinking process closely -- to some, this may seem
obvious.  Expressing thoughts, as with thinking those same thoughts,
involves contemplation: what is it I want to say?  Did I achieve it? 
Might it be better related to someone (not being inside my head) if I
expressed it in a slightly (or dramatically) different way?

I don't write poetry.  If I did, though, I could imagine there being
times when I wanted to express a thought exactly as it had come to me,
in the hopes of simply mirroring the thought, and not relating it to
someone else.

In almost every other genre of writing, however, a general rule of thumb
for someone whose purpose is to -relate- the thought would be to
consider, above all, the audience.  This is most effectively done after
the thought is written.  Hence, the value of editing.

Most editors' jobs, if they can keep an overly personal view from
impeding upon their job, are to mirror that audience.  If it is unclear
to them, it will be unclear to others.  While this does not suggest that
writing which is crystal clear to the editor will be so to everyone
involved, it is nonetheless a starting point.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is whether you are considering a
writer-based or reader-based expression.  And in most cases, it also
seems to me, the intention is to create reader-based thoughts which can
be expressed most simply to people who did not have the original thought
in the unique way that the writer did.

As someone who is currently studying the effect of audience on the
writing process (or the lack of it), I'm surprised to hear so many
people express the opinion that rewriting is so useless.

I'd be interested to hear more opinions on the matter...hopefully, this
thread will continue...

Take it Easy,
Brian