The major paper may have been the most difficult assignment for me, but successful revision and editing was possibly the most challenging outcome with which to comply. Outcome four requires that the writing shows evidence of perfunctory, grammatical proofreading, adaptations based on the comments of peer reviewers and instructors, and significant revision of structure and content beyond just typical editing. As the revision guide linked to in the portfolio description states, revision entails, “reconsidering your arguments, reviewing your evidence, refining your purpose, reorganizing your structure, reviving your language.”

An approximately 250 word assignment would not immediately appear to be the best example of extensive editing, but I argue that the need for extreme clarity of thought within abstracts makes short assignment four one of the most important to have perfected. Outcome four clearly states that the writer is supposed to “develop flexible strategies for revising, editing, and proofreading writing.” An integral part of this outcome is thus not only the actual revision itself, but the formation of sustainable, replicable strategies for said revision. Adapting a text specifically to be as concise as possible was a new hurdle for me that did lead to the development of innovative approaches to editing.

Of the total 260 words in my abstract, 106 of them are either entirely different or have had the content of their sentences revised. For example, the names of my secondary source articles were obviously not changed, but my explanation of their role within my major paper was clarified. Some of my edits were simply mechanical fixes: the word definition was repeated twice in my first question, so during proofreading I removed one to make it grammatically correct. Others had to do with tone and word choice: in the first sentence, I changed the phrase “This paper will break down the subject of Darl’s purported insanity” to “This paper will delineate the subject of Darl’s purported insanity” (SA4 Revised). Although a simple switch, by replacing “break down” with “delineate” I was more concise and used formal wording more appropriate for the genre. The bulk of my revisions, however, focused on better content within my abstract. The short assignment four prompt calls for, “The methods used to address this research problem—i.e. documents or evidence analyzed, and the scope therein.” While I did include which documents I would be utilizing in my major paper, I did not fully explain how they would be used, writing only, “I will examine these chapters in part through the perspectives provided by [the scholarly articles]” (SA 4). Navid pointed out that “it's unclear *exactly* what subclaims/approaches are emerging from your secondary materials,” so in my revision I clarified their purpose within my major paper, stating: “‘A Discourse Analysis of Darl’s Descent into Madness in Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying’ by Shannon Terry Wiley will establish one potential mode for analyzing Darl’s insanity, while ‘Shaping the Life of Man: Darl Bundren as Supplementary Narrator in As I Lay Dying’ by Laura Mathews will present rationales for his insanity within his role as a character and as a literary device” (SA4 Revised).

I also closely edited and revised my major paper, especially between drafts 1 and 2 in response to peer editor suggestions. Heather in particular was extremely helpful when she pointed out that the “third paragraph has cool ideas but I wasn’t exactly sure what to make of them,” and noted that she did not understand “why it matters that Darl is the most important narrator.” When I carefully reread my paper I realized that these ideas were out of place, and that much of the confusion stemmed from the fact that I had incorporated some of Mathews’s arguments into my writing without fully explaining them or their significance, and without properly citing her. This led to substantial structural revisions. In my final paper, the ideas in the third paragraph, which were about the suspension of disbelief and Darl’s role as a narrator, were completely broken up and dispersed throughout the new third and fourth paragraphs. The fifth paragraph was then heavily edited so that it still made sense within the new context.

A smaller, but still substantive edit I made was in response to one of Navid’s comment on my second draft of the major paper. He wrote, “…we can probably assume that the Bundrens are incapable of performing the kind of nuanced, logical analysis you’ve done here” in regards to one of my stakes. My stake claimed that even more negative assessments of the Bundren family were possible with my qualifying analysis of Darl’s sanity. However, Navid was right in that his family members may have legitimately thought Darl was insane. To clarify my position, I added the phrase “for their own selfish motives” (MP Revised 7) to show that it was their unrestricted, self-serving attitudes that led to an unfavorable analysis of their characters, rather than their inability to critically assess Darl’s mental health. The process of making the major revisions and edits outlined here in addition to the many smaller changes throughout all of my assignments enabled me to produce much more polished, refined works.