Revision
This group task drilled the crucial difference between revision and editing deep into my mind. Revision, as I now understand it, is the architecture, the reshaping of the entire structure, the mission, the impact. Editing? That’s just cleaning the windows after the walls are rebuilt. Learning about Hemingway’s 39 drafts and J.K. Rowling’s obsessive rewriting reminded me that revision isn’t a one-time tweak; it’s a ritual of refinement.
I learned practical strategies, like drafting daily in small bursts or outlining with question-based start points, to manage revision time without being overwhelmed. Most importantly, I reevaluated my mindset: revision isn’t a bad thing, it’s an opportunity to elevate meaning and precision. This activity made me more intentional in my writing process and more open to criticism, not just hearing it, but using it as fuel.
Revision Vs. Editing
Revision vs Editing
As a group, we reviewed the Revising vs. Editing doc and then answered the following questions together.
1. In your own words, what is the difference between revising and editing?
2. How many times did Ernest Hemingway revise the last page of A Farewell to Arms? (found in the video)
3. Together, find one more example of an author who writes about their revision process and explain their thinking/ or an example of how many times they revised X. (Google is your friend, folks. Just think of the best keywords to curate an effective search).
4. Consider the process of revision in terms of time management. What are some strategies for effective revision? How might these strategies influence when/ how you write your drafts? Discuss and record your conversations.
5. What does revision consist of? What kinds of questions might you consider when revising?
6. What does editing consist of? What kinds of questions might you consider when editing?
On your own, answer the following question:
1. What were your preconceived thoughts/ ideas about revision and editing? How have they changed after this video and conversation? Are you feeling more positive about the use of revision or editing?
2. Knowing that you have two drafts before your final submission, brainstorm a few names of people you might ask to edit your paper outside of the peer review and conferences with me.
Revising is more ‘big picture’ you are editing the content, message, structure while editing is more ‘small picture’ more grammatical, and spelling etc.
2. Ernest Hemingway revised the last page of A Farewell to Arms a total of 39 times.
3. J.K Rowling uses a sort of ‘calendar’ process where she writes tidbits of information in the order she wants them to go and then she will fill in the information as she writes. She claimed she rewrote one chapter of her first book a total of 15 times. She rewrote Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone a total of 15 times before she published it.
4. Some strategies for effective writing are writing a little bit each day and highlighting what you want to write that day. One way you could also do it is to answer questions that you wrote and use that information to build your paragraphs.
5. Are the messages aligned, and are you content in alignment with your thesis statement? Does it convey the message of the original goal? Is it easy to understand, and does it flow well?
6. Editing mainly consists of proofreading your work and looking for grammatical issues like spelling and punctuation. How to find suitable vocabulary for your audience and for your work.
I then answer the following questions by myself:
1. What were your preconceived thoughts/ ideas about revision and editing? How have they changed after this video and conversation? Are you feeling more positive about the use of revision or editing?
My thoughts regarding writing involved similar concepts. Revision is the big picture, it involves correcting the organization, positioning of the message, and creating a proper overview. Editing is a small picture or microcosmic. It involves smaller details like grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.
This draft reflection was my strategic reconnaissance, an analysis of my own battlefield before the feedback barrage began. Through this assignment, I learned to step back and view my writing through a critical lens, identifying not just what was working but where my structure faltered and ideas blurred. The self-assessment revealed my strengths in analysis and source integration, while also exposing cracks in organization and tone consistency.
Asking for targeted feedback on clarity, evidence depth, and audience engagement was my way of taking control of the revision process, rather than reacting passively. This document demonstrates intentional revision: I acknowledged uncertainties, prioritized deeper improvements over grammar nitpicks, and set a clear agenda for how reader feedback would shape the next draft. That’s revision not as a chore, but as a power move.
Discussion Draft 1 Peer Review
As I reflect on my draft, I recognize its strengths and areas for improvement. The process of shaping this research has been both engaging and thought-provoking, and I hope my analysis provides valuable insight into the intersection of humor, violence, and superhero conventions.
What I am proud of
One of the strongest elements of my draft is its depth of analysis. I believe I effectively explore how humor functions as a storytelling tool, particularly in reshaping audience perceptions of violence and morality. The inclusion of scholarly research strengthens my argument, and I am particularly proud of how I integrated multiple sources to provide a nuanced perspective. Additionally, I think my discussion of Deadpool’s fourth wall-breaking humor and its effect on audience engagement is a compelling aspect of the paper.
Areas for revision and concern
There are a few areas that I believe could be improved. First, I am slightly concerned about the organization of some sections—specifically, whether my transition between topics is smooth enough. At times, I fear that my discussion on humor’s role in moral ambiguity and audience desensitization could be more clearly structured. Additionally, I want to ensure that my use of sources is balanced and that I am not over-relying on a few key studies.
Another concern is whether my tone remains appropriately academic throughout. Given that Deadpool is a humorous and self-aware film, I want to make sure my writing maintains scholarly rigor while still capturing the film’s playful essence. Any feedback on whether my tone is too informal or too rigid would be greatly appreciated.
Feedback I would like
I would love specific feedback on the following aspects:
Clarity and Organization – Do my ideas flow logically from one to the next? Are there any areas where the transitions could be stronger?
Depth of Analysis: Are my arguments convincing? Do I provide enough evidence to support my claims, or are there areas where I need to elaborate further?
Engagement and Readability: Does my writing keep the reader engaged while maintaining academic integrity?
Feedback I do not want
I am not looking for surface-level grammar or spelling corrections. I don’t mind general feedback without specific explanations.
Areas of uncertainty
I am somewhat unsure if my interpretation of audience reception is well supported. While I reference critical reviews and psychological studies, I wonder if my claims about audience desensitization and engagement with violent humor need more empirical backing. If you have any thoughts on how I might strengthen this section, I would greatly appreciate it.As I reflect on my draft, I recognize its strengths and areas for improvement. The process of shaping this research has been both engaging and thought-provoking, and I hope my analysis provides valuable insight into the intersection of humor, violence, and superhero conventions.