Author: Qian Yue
Editor: Yong Yongai
Recently, I saw a state in my academic idol, Paula England, on Twitter, which reminded me of the debt I had already owed. Last time, I wrote an article “The ability to “write and write” is shared: turning everyday writing into a habit.” And in the text with everyone promised, I want to write a change of experience.
I am more and more aware that I like to change the paper far more than I like to write the first draft. For me, changing the article often changes to stop and change to 嗨! Sometimes, the first time I work with someone, I feel a little offended: “Why did you change everything I wrote?!” But when they contacted me more, I knew that I changed the article, almost all of them. Reorganize the structure of papers, paragraphs, sentences, and words.
Today, I want to share my thoughts on changing my thesis, or because I read Murakami’s book, “My profession is a novelist.” His process of changing a novel has the same effect as the process of changing a thesis. Below, I will quote his original text first, then talk about my feelings about changing the paper.
However, the writing of novels is not like baseball. Once written, there are other events that start. If you let me know, then from here on, it is worth the time-consuming and relishing part.
After the first draft is completed, put it in for a while, and take a small break (depending on the situation, but usually rest for a week or so), then enter the first round of revision. I always do a complete rewrite from scratch, and do a considerable amount of overall processing. No matter how long a novel is and how complicated the structure is, I will never formulate a writing plan first, but I don’t know anything about the development and ending. I believe in the horse and think about where to write it, and let the story improvise. This is of course much more interesting to write. However, writing in this way may lead to inconsistencies and unreasonable situations in many places. The image and character of the characters on the scene may also suddenly change suddenly in the middle of the road, and the time setting may also be reversed. It is necessary to resolve these contradictory areas one by one and turn them into a reasonable and coherent story. A large part of it has to be completely removed, and some parts have to be expanded, and some new episodes are added from time to time.
After I finish writing the first draft of the paper, I will take a break for a while. If there is a collaborator, I will send the first draft to the collaborators. However, the revision after the first draft is really like what Haruki Murakami said, “to make a complete rewrite from scratch, and to carry out a considerable scale of overall processing.” In this round of revisions, I mainly look at whether the literature review is comprehensive and organized, and sometimes it will adjust the paragraphs in a comprehensive manner. For example, I recently changed a paper, the collaborator was responsible for writing a part of the literature review, and then when I read it, I found that from the literature review to the research hypothesis, and our empirical analysis is a bit out of touch, so I deleted her to write A lot of parts, then the argument that she interspersed between several parts is integrated into a paragraph. Therefore, the literature review, the research hypothesis, and the empirical analysis are all very comprehensive lines.
After the process is over, I will put it aside for another week and then make a second round of changes. This time it was also reworked from the ground up, but with more attention to detail and careful revision. For example, add some detailed landscape descriptions and integrate the tone of the conversation. Check if there is any difference between the plot and the development of the plot. It is easy to understand the parts that are difficult to understand under the first reading, and make the story more natural. This is not a major surgery, but an accumulation of minor surgery. After the end of this round of work, take a break and then proceed to the next round of revisions. This time it is not so much surgery, it is better to say that it is closer to correction.
If the first round of revision is mainly to look at the logic of the overall text, then the next modification is more like, to adjust the details of each sentence word by word. I will pay special attention to: Is there a conjunction between the sentence and the sentence? Does every paragraph have a “sentence that leads the whole paragraph”? Is there a summary of the appropriate length at the end of each section? Is there a transition between chapters? I will even check if there is any change in my wording? For example, verbs such as examine, investigate,assess, evaluate, etc., however, yes, but, etc., words that indicate a turn, thus, before, and other words that express causality, I use them alternately, not in sentences that are close together. Repeat the same word.
Roughly here, I will give myself a long vacation. If possible, put the work in the drawer for half a month to a month, or even forget that there is such a thing, or try to forget it… After you have cured the work like this, start to completely modify the subtle parts again. . A well-conserved work will give me a different impression than before. The shortcomings that were not previously discovered are clearly revealed at this time. The depth of the article can be discerned. Like the “conservation” of the work, my brain has also been well maintained.
“Conservation” is also an important part. I usually take a break of one to two weeks after a few rounds of change, and I am trying to forget this paper. When I open this paper again, I feel like I am changing a new paper. Many problems that were not discovered during the previous rounds of revisions will also emerge.
Sometimes, changing a paper for a long time is a very exhausting thing. I found that many times, I changed very seriously before, and then I relaxed. Therefore, I will fight for each round of revisions, starting with different chapters. In this way, every chapter will be examined and revised by me with great enthusiasm and clear thinking. For example, I will focus on changing the front end (introduction and literature review), slightly modifying the method and results, and paying less attention to the part of the discussion at the end of the previous rounds. When I get to the third round, I will look closely: Is the formula in the method part accurate? Are the results clearly written? Did the part of the discussion echo the beginning and the findings of the study?
It has been fully cured and has been rewritten to some extent. At this stage, what is of great significance is the opinion of the third party… However, if I ask if I am swallowing up, I will accept all the things that people say, but it is not necessarily. After all, I just wrote a novel in painstakingly. Although it has cooled down after the maintenance, my head is full of blood. When I hear criticism, I will inevitably get angry, and I will use emotions and even a heated quarrel… … Her criticism, some made me think “it is true”, “maybe it really is like this.” Sometimes it takes a few days to reach this kind of understanding. There are also some that make me feel “not right, I don’t think so, or my thoughts are right.” However, in the process of “introducing a third party”, I have a unique rule, that is, “the place where people are picky, and must be modified anyway.” Even if you can’t accept that kind of criticism, as long as people put forward their opinions, I will rewrite that place from scratch. When I disagreed with the opinion, I even rewritten in the opposite direction to the other party’s advice.
Regardless of the direction, let’s set a few points to modify, and try to read it again, almost every time I found it better than before. I think that when someone who has read a comment on a certain part, and regardless of the direction of the opinion, that part often implies certain problems. That is to say, the development of the plot in the novel is somewhat embarrassing, and my job is to remove those embarrassing places. As for the method to remove, it is up to the writer to decide. Even if you think “it’s perfect to write here, there is no need to change it”, you should sit silently at the table, no matter how you make some changes. Because the article “writes perfectly” is actually impossible.
This revision does not have to be carried out from the beginning, but is focused on the part that has problems and criticisms. After this is roughly completed, it will be revised from the beginning and adjusted to confirm the overall plot. If minor changes are made to various places, resulting in disorder of the overall tone, the amendment will be made, and then the manuscript will be formally submitted to the editor for review.
I really feel the same about the psychological activities described by Haruki Murakami. I remember that after I dropped the paper, I received a rejection letter. The reviewer wrote anonymously: “How come you didn’t mention XXXX?” “What does XXXX mean?” I will complain to the instructor: “I clearly in the paper.” Written, why did the reviewer not read the article seriously, but said that I did not write?” My tutor told me: “Never blame the reviewers on the blame, they put forward such opinions, saying that we did not write clearly. We It is necessary to modify the places where they have misunderstandings and write them more clearly.” The words of the mentor have inspired and influenced me a lot. Although I sometimes feel very frustrated when I get the review comments, I will blame me on the responsibility, I can write more clearly, or I can reorganize the structure of the text to improve the clarity of the paper. . For example, I had a previous paper and did a lot of sensitivity analysis. The result was rejected when I submitted it for the first time because the reviewer said that my analysis did not consider many other important situations. I don’t know my. Whether the results are credible. But in fact, these extra analyses, when I introduce variables or main results, are scattered and scattered. I did not blame the reviewers; instead, based on their criticism, I extracted the most important sensitivity analyses from the article separately and then formed a special section. Later, when the manuscript was resubmitted, the new reviewer did not put forward the same criticism. Instead, he said that I “analyze comprehensively and consider thoughtfully” and believe in my results very much.
At the same time, at “Introducing a third party” In the process, I will strategically choose “third party” to help me review the draft. Because everyone’s usual life and work are very busy, if you want someone to carefully read the complete text and propose changes, it is really a delay for others. Therefore, I generally choose the place I am most unsure of, and then send it to a friend or teacher who feels that I am very good in the corresponding aspect. For example, I used to have a monograph. When I modified it, I was not sure if I answered the reviewer’s opinion very accurately. So, I sent the theoretical part of the article (about 3 pages) to a very strong friend to help me see, then sent the description of the formula and method to a very strong friend, and I will tell them, my What are the specific problems and I hope they will focus on where they are. This way, when they look at it, and finally give me suggestions for revision, they are very targeted.
In other words, it is important to modify the behavior itself. The writer is determined to “make this change better”, calmly and calmly sit down at the desk and start to modify the article. This gesture has incomparable significance…
How many times does the modification come? Even if you ask me this way, I can’t give a precise answer. In the first draft stage, it has been revised many times. After the delivery of the proofs by the publishing house, the proofs will be asked again and again, causing people to be upset. I changed the proof to a black one and sent it back. Then I changed the newly sent proof to a black one, so I repeated it. As I said before, this is a job that requires patience, but it is not a pain for me. The same article repeatedly read and read again, chewing the charm, changing the word order, changing the subtle expression, I naturally like this kind of “tempering and tapping.” I saw the proof turned into a black one, and the dozens of HB pencils discharged from the desks became shorter and shorter, and I felt great joy. I don’t know why, this kind of thing is very interesting to me, it is unspeakable, no matter how long it takes, I won’t get bored.
I think if you have “to make a better posture here,” you may also like the Haruki Murakami and Paula England, think that changing the article is a very fun thing.
Good articles are all changed. I hope that today’s sharing can inspire you. I hope you can also find the fun of changing the article!
The excerpt of Haruki Murakami comes from the sixth chapter of “My profession is a novelist”, “Being a friend with time – writing a novel.” Online reading can be done through this link: