home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.writing
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!emr1!thiessen
- From: thiessen@emr1.emr.ca (Tracy Thiessen)
- Subject: Re: *** Why is rewriting bad ?/It ain't
- Message-ID: <1993Jan21.182310.29066@emr1.emr.ca>
- Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
- References: <JTCHEW-200193104321@b50-afrd5.lbl.gov> <ELIZ.93Jan20215452@august.ai.mit.edu> <C17HDo.CDC@unx.sas.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:23:10 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <C17HDo.CDC@unx.sas.com> saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Leonard Paul Olszewski) writes:
- >
- >In article <ELIZ.93Jan20215452@august.ai.mit.edu>, eliz@ai.mit.edu (Elizabeth Willey) writes:
- >|>
- >
- >[stuff deleted
- >
- >Indeed, this is true; unfortunately, this is hardly possible. Anyone who
- >writes technical material in one draft produces very bad technical
- >material. I usually work with three drafts. In the first, I try to get
- >everything in, don't worry too much about the words, and understand the
- >overall structure is open for negotiation. In the second, I try to get
- >all of the factual errors corrected, add any omissions, fix the
- >structure, and start to polish. In the third, I eliminate any remaining
- >factual errors (with any luck), and I lay the final concise, clear,
- >consistent wording into place. Then the editors get it and straighten it
- >out 8-).
- >
- Or in my case, the engineers get it and rip its guts out. I have
- to shunt my stuff through at least three levels of technical
- heirarchy, before the policy people take their shots. Very tricky.
- I like to write the first draft, and read (and rewrite)
- subsequent drafts at different times of the day. If I liked it
- a 9, and still like it at five, it's a go.
-
- Tracy
-
-
-