Develop substantive prose by engaging in sustained efforts at revision. Understand the importance of rhetoric, invention, information literacy, and style to revision. Write more effectively by being strategic about how you revise documents. Prioritize revision at the global, rhetorical level.

Revision is re-envisioning something. Revision is sustained thinking about how to best communicate a message.

Mindset: Revision is fueled by intellectual openness, critique, research, collaboration, critical literacy.

Synonyms: Drafting, Rethinking, Rhetorical Reasoning, Rewriting, Reconsidering, Updating

See Also
Revision practices are deeply intertwined with other composing processes (e.g., critique, critical literacy, rhetoric, invention, information literacy and style).

In workplace and school settings, people use a variety of terms to describe revision, including

  • a high-level review
  • a global review
  • a substantive rewrite
  • a major rewrite
  • a re-read based on new information.

Writers engage in revision

Studies of Writers @ Work across disciplines and professions have found that writers spend much of their time revising during composing.

Revision & Invention

Revision and Invention are interrelated, recursive processes: writers engage in acts of invention and revision simultaneously. Successful writers look and look again at their manuscripts because they know that this constant reworking is one of the most effective ways to discover what they want to say:

Every act of creation is first an act of destruction. — Pablo Picasso

Think before you speak, is criticism’s motto; speak before you think is creation’s. — E.M. Forster

I’m working on something. I don’t know exactly what. — Eudora Welty

Writing and rewriting are a constant search for what one is saying. — John Updike

We write out what we don’t know about what we know. — Grace Paley

I write out of ignorance. I write about the things I don’t have any resolutions for, and when I’m finished, I think I know a little bit more about it. I don’t write out of what I know. It’s what I don’t know that stimulates me. — Toni Morrison

Revision, Composing & Inexperienced Writers

Inexperienced writers may be unaware of the importance of revision to successful communication. For instance, Kelli Sorrentino, an undergraduate student at a university in the U.S., writes:

When I first learned about revision in class, it was like some great revelation to me, for some reason. I think I had some sort of mistaken notion about leaving pieces of work “just as they came to me.” I believed that there was something magical about inspiration. But now that I’ve learned to look at my work more critically, I realize that I can improve on all of my so-called “inspired ideas.” Revising pieces constantly has taught me to improve on inspiration and when l really got into it, it proved to be a godsend. Now I really enjoy picking my writing apart because I’ve learned that this allows me to produce better writing than I’ve ever done before.

Students whose works are receiving low grades or befuddled looks from readers may have unreasonable expectations. Unlike professionals, they may assume they should write an essay in just two or three drafts.

For some writers, for some rhetorical situations–particularly occasions where original research, substantive prose, is the goal–revision is crucial to successful communication.

To rewrite ten times is not unusual. Oh, bother the mess, mark them as much as you like; what else are they for? Mark everything that strikes you. I may consider a thing forty-nine times; but if you consider it, it will be considered 50 times, and a line 50 times considered is 2 percent better than a line 49 times considered. And it is the final 2 percent that makes the difference between excellence and mediocrity. — George Bernard Shaw

“lt’s always taken me a long time to finish poems. When I was in my twenties I found poems taking six months to a year, maybe fifty drafts or so. Now I am going over two hundred drafts regularly, working on things four or five years and longer; too long! I wish I did not take so long.” — James Hall

Getting words on paper is difficult. Nothing I write is good enough in the first draft, not even personal letters. Important work must he written over and over—up to six or seven times. — James Michener

Perhaps the most pernicious assumption that inexperienced writers make is that polished, A-level essays are the products of an inspired mind, of a born writer. As Lafcadio Hearn argued in his lectures at Tokyo University between 1896 and 1902, many novice writers wrongly assume that they should wait to be inspired before writing:

Nothing has been more productive of injury to young literary students than those stories, or legends, about great writers having written great books in a very short time. They suggest what must be in a million cases impossible, as a common possibility. It is much more valuable to remember that Gray passed fourteen years in correcting and improving a single poem, and that no great poem or book, as we now have the text, represents the first form [of] the text.

Almost everything composed by Tennyson was changed and changed and changed again, to such an extent that in almost every edition the text differed. Above all things do not imagine that any good work can be done without immense pains.

Lafcadio Hearn

Revision & Mindset

Revision can be a challenging process. After investing time composing a text, it can be difficult to delete it altogether or significantly revise it.

Revision is empowered by Professionalism, a strong Work Ethic, and Resilience. Revision is built on the foundation of a Growth Mindset: and metacognitive about composing processes.

In summary, rather than viewing revision as an act of polishing ideas, successful writers consider revision to be an opportunity to develop their thinking—as an opportunity to think through the topic, thesis/research question, information in a substantive way. When facing tough writing assignments, they rarely expect to produce a final copy after writing just one or two drafts. Comforted by the knowledge that few people express their ideas perfectly without practice, they expect to revise. They understand that revision is an inevitable step in the process of making meaning.

Related Concepts

Does the co-authored text or team-produced text suggest a lack of trust, negotiation, coordination, and conflict resolution among the authors and team members? Are some sections well researched and others lacking evidence or logical reasoning? Are some sections edited well while others aren’t?

Has the writer responded to critiques and peer reviews?
Has the most appropriate genre or remixing of genres been chosen given the exigency of the situation? Does the text account for the prevailing genre conventions? As currently written, does the text reflect the epistemological assumptions of practitioners regarding what constitutes a knowledge claim and how knowledge claims can be tested?
Information Literacy
Does the text reflect deep research? Are foundational authors and texts identified? Does the text need to better illustrate the evolution of research on a topic? Have the authors clarified how cited work was produced and evaluated by others? Have intellectual property laws and conventions been honored? Does the text reflect both visual and quantitative literacy?
Will readers be able to discern when sources are being cited?
Does the text convey new information to readers/listeners? Is it potentially disruptive? Could the writer employ invention strategies to create a more interesting text?
Does the ethos of the writer suggest intellectual openness? Does the text reflect the standards of professionalism and work ethic appropriate for its rhetorical situation? Is the writing and design of the document, the style of prose,
Does the writer follow the most effective organizational plan? Would a deductive approach be more effective? Is the thesis/hypothesis clear throughout? Is transitional language provided, as necessary? Do the writers move from given information to new information?
Do the author(s) employ the research methodologies expected by the Community of Practitioners they are addressing?
Does the text respond to the rhetorical situation?