Mercy! Mercy! That Dang Nabed PERCY!

The Second Edit Review

The Second Edit Review…

I have an idea for a new review format….It is called the Second Edit Review…It is a "Showing" rather then a "Telling" type of review. No doubt it has been tried before but if it has it is not very well known. To do one you take the work to be reviewed and copy it into your word processor. Next you pretend that you wrote it the night before and are about to embark on a second edit. You make the changes you would have made as if it were your own and paste that into the review block of the work. That’s it…make sure you label it as a second Edit Review.

In this type review you don’t have to type in all that salve for the thin skinned….i.e. “This is only my opinion…if you don’t like it don’t use it….I don’t want to be responsible for taking any of the joy from your life. It could be I’m wrong….Please don’t curl up into a ball and go into a catatonic stupor.”

Now I realize some people overreact to negative or faint praise but I really think it has gotten to the point where seventy-five percent of a review is consumed in this kind of verbiage and it needs to be dialed back….so in this review there is none of that required…the reviewer steps up to the plate and buys into a version of the work as if it is their own and makes of it the very best they can…as a consequence all that soft padding is not necessary.

When a writer receives a second edit review they print off a copy of their original. Then they print off a copy of the review….Then they read both original and review to decide if the review has anything to offer. If the answer is no the writer tosses it in the trash….if however the writer likes some aspects or in total… the sound of the revision, he/she takes a third sheet of paper and line by line compares what he/she has written with what the reviewer rewrote…If the reviewer’s line is an enhancement then the writer admits or rewrites the line in question….often the rewrite will delete material and in such cases all that is necessary is to follow suit….in cases where there are word choice substitutions then the writer must decide to stay with the original text, use the recommended word or search for some other word that better expresses the idea. If the writer takes the review line verbatim that is fine…it is not plagiarism, or an admission of ineptitudet….in any line of literature there is an optimal choice and arrangement of words…if the writer sees it staring back he/she should by all means use it. This is a good example of what Hesiod was trying to tell us 500 BC….”That too is excellence…knowing the best when we see it. Don’t accept second best or change for the worse on principle. (i.e. I can’t use it because I didn’t think it up.)

I consider the Editorial review the most elegant of critiques and it shows the reviewer really invested in the process. It leaves absolutely no questions of what the reviewer is getting at because the answer is clearly shown in the second edit. Finally the reviewer doesn’t have to explain why as the proof is in the pudding.

Since this is a technique I haven’t seen used here at writing. Com I’m sure it will be viewed with skepticism and misunderstanding….that the reviewer somehow thinks his ability is superior to the writers… (Of course the reviewer is going to think his words resonate better because they come from his mind and not the writers), however this is not the point….here the reviewer is going beyond constructive comment and showing a viable alternative.

Anyway if anyone wants to practice this review technique on my work I welcome you to do so…If it resonates I will make the necessary amendments.