Re: OT: Books on writing?

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

> There is editing and there is self-editing. In my opinion, a writer who
> edits his own work is missing an important part of the process.
There's no necessity of choice here. You get both. First you edit and edit
and edit. Then (or after the second or third draft) you get someone else to
read it. But you *must* edit yourself, even if you do that while drafting.
> Someone once said that you don't understand something until you can
> explain it to someone else.
Yeah, I think I said it. Well, I've said that the best way to learn
something is to teach it.
>  The limitation of self-editing is that so
> long as you are still explaining it only to yourself, you may think you
> have explained it well, but only because you already think you
> understand it.
But the 16th time that you've written something that you've edited until
you thought it was clear, but found out it wasn't, *and grasped the
reasons* why it was unclear, you are going to be able to write objectively
through self-editing.
Also, I should have said last time that reading good writing is training
for the subconscious. Particularly if you identify the means by which the
good writing achieves its goodness.
>  When you hear what someone else has understood of it
> based on what you've written, then you see where you've chosen the right
> words and where you haven't. And that's what an editor is for.
Yes, I'm all for that, too. In my own case, it was only by having my
writing torn to shreds for several years that I was able, finally, to
produce prose that still looks good to me, reviewing it decades later.
>
Umpires, yes. They have to learn to make the right calls of balls and
strikes--that's what a batter does: serves as his own umpire. But, whatever
the value of this analogy, you're not seriously maintaining that kids
should *not* be taught to edit what they

Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx