Mercy! Mercy! That Dang Nabed PERCY!

Second Edit Review...from theory to practical application.

Second Edit Review…from theory to practical application.

When I see something that isn’t working as well as I think it should, I like to try and fix it. I do this with the trucks I work on in the shop and I do it with my writing.

One of the things I see here at writing.com that could use a little fixing is the review process….Rather than go on a rip detailing why I think the process is broke I instead resolved to focus on looking outside the box for some processes that might work better. I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and genuinely believe that for many here the “Structured Review” which contains a format of things a reviewer should consider works with many members. If it works then by all means use it. The shortcoming(s) of the structured approach are that it carries a lot of boilerplate and at best only provides a smidgen of useful information to a serious writer. It is riddled with caveat, disclaimer and telling rather than showing a writer specific things to examine. The best examples would easily take over an hour to write.

I was looking for a means that reduced the boiler plate, the disclaimers, focused on showing rather than telling and could be done on a 1000 word work in about half an hour….something that would result in many more possibilities a writer could examine To this end I came up with the Second Edit Review…Anyone interested in how this review works can see a more detailed explanation in yesterday's blog.

The response has come so far from three good writers…two have rejected it out of hand without even considering it an option….They shuddered when they saw it and thought it a terrible idea.

Another writer resolved to give it a try. I did one on her work and she did one on mine. When I got hers I made a copy and brought up my original version on the screen. I used a paper copy but one could easily use a split screen. I then began going line by line. Every time she made a change I stopped and asked myself…”Why did she do that?.” One of the characteristics of this review is that the reviewer doesn’t explain as much… they just go through the work makiing amendments like they were doing a second edit on their own work. This is not to say the reviewer can’t and didn’t make comments where she felt they were necessary. For the most part however they were not necessary.

The amendments that began to present themselves were grammatical, structural, passive/active voice, contextual word choice, POV, sentence shortening, deletion of adjectives and adverbs and unneeded clauses and phrases. As I looked at each change the reviewer instinctually made without breaking the rhythm of her review, I was amazed by how effortless she made it appear and it was I suspect much easier for her than trying to pick things out of context and trying to explain in a way that made sense..taking care not to sound offensive...(ie, consider this, have you thought about that...etc). In other words it took a process, the second edit, the reviewer was already intimately familiar with and applied it to the review process.

The result was I got twenty-five things I could examine and assess rather than the usual one or two in about half the time.
As I am discovering, this type of review is not for everyone, but before you dismiss it with a look of distain, you might actually try one with a fellow colleague…If you have someone you regularly review and they reciprocate, this might prove to have more utility than it does at first blush.