Q&R 4

Why is the approach to revision of writings, that many authors take, fundamentally flawed?
Many writers such as James Britton and Gordo Rohman have theories about the writing process that model it after speech. They believe that writing follows the “linear model” of thought and language. That is to say, that writings arise from and as fluidly as speech arises from thought. With this line of thinking, revision is viewed as a separate process that takes place at the end of the writing process that comes after the first and second draft and is divided, totally, and separately from the rest of the writing process.
This line of thinking is, however, very inappropriate and inapplicable in the context of the revision of writing. When one speaks, one does not revise one’s own speech. The linear model of speech makes revision of writings, nothing more than an afterthought (N. Sommers, 379). The very thing that separates writing from speech is that one can go back and fundamentally alter writing at one’s own desire, while speech can’t be revised, not in the total and fundamental way in which writing can.
One of the main reasons why teachers still try to teach writing using the linear model of writing modeled after speech is that “there is a fundamental tie between teaching and speech” (N. Sommers, 379). This is only logical, because the primary way that people communicate with one another is through speech. When I have an idea in my head, and I want to share it with you, I do so by telling you, and so, when teachers try to teach us things, they do so through oral instruction. However, this approach cannot be taken when attempting to teach writing, because writing is a much more permanent and concrete way to express ideas and as such allows for and requires the process of revision to allow for its growth and perfection.