4.3 Polishing You First Draft
Craft your draft.
When you complete the process described in Section 4.2, your outline has become your first draft. With your draft down, you next polish up (Lamott, 1995) by revising your draft to improve your wording.
Polishing takes time and effort and requires multiple passes (Becker, 2020; Elbow, 1981; Germano, 2021; Lamott, 1995; McPhee, 2017; Zinsser, 2006). Improving writing requires multiple passes because each editing pass makes your manuscript better. William Zinsser (2006, p. 17) teaches an important lesson to his students: “If you give me an eight-page article and I tell you to cut it to four pages, you’ll howl and say it can’t be done. Then you’ll go home and do it, and it will be much better. After that comes the hard part: cutting it to three.” Editing your manuscript requires effort because you must pay attention to detail when you make choices about which words to cut or to rewrite.
Paying attention to detail while editing a manuscript means carefully considering a manuscript’s words while also keeping in mind rules for improving writing style. To keep such rules in mind, I often start a big editing project by revisiting my favorite writing books (Strunk & White, 1959; Zinsser, 2006) which remind, inspire and motivate me. The style books I turn to refresh the core principles which guide my editing. I follow six crucial principles (Table 4-1).
| Table 4-1. General principles to follow during polishing, with example sources. |
|---|
| Examples Of Principle 1: Choose words carefully |
| Have a point and make it by means of the best words (Barzun, 1985) |
| Choose your words with care (Greene, 2013) |
| Only use adjectives and adverbs when they add new information to a sentence (Sword, 2016) |
| Vary your prepositions (Sword, 2016) |
| Examples Of Principle 2: Think in paragraphs |
| Make the paragraph the unit of composition (Strunk & White, 1959) |
| Examples Of Principle 3: Use the active voice |
| Use the active voice (Strunk & White, 1959) |
| Favor the active voice (Greene, 2013) |
| Favor strong, specific, robust action verbs over weak, vague, lazy ones (Sword, 2016) |
| Limit your use of be-verbs (Sword, 2016) |
| Examples Of Principle 4: Be concrete |
| Use definite, specific, concrete language |
| Put statements in positive form (Strunk & White, 1959) |
| Do most of your descriptive work with concrete nouns and active verbs (Sword, 2016) |
| Anchor abstract ideas in concrete language and images (Sword, 2016) |
| Show don’t tell (Sword, 2016) |
| Limit your use of abstract nouns and nominalizations (Sword, 2016) |
| Examples Of Principle 5: Pay attention to word order |
| Keep related words together (Strunk & White, 1959) |
| Place the emphatic words of a sentence at the end (Strunk & White, 1959) |
| Do not allow a noun and its accompanying verb to be separated by more than twelve words (Sword, 2016) |
| Avoid using more than three prepositional phrases in a row (Sword, 2016) |
| Examples Of Principle 6: Omit needless words |
| Omit needless words (Strunk & White, 1959) |
| Omit needless words (Greene, 2013) |
| Weed out the jargon (Barzun, 1985) |
| Look for all fancy wordings and get rid of them (Barzun, 1985) |
| Use it and this only when you can state exactly which noun each word refers to (Sword, 2016) |
| Avoid overuse of ‘academic ad-words’ (Sword, 2016) |
| Avoid using that more than once in a sentence or three times in a paragraph (Sword, 2016) |
| Beware of sweeping generalization which begin with ‘There’ (Sword, 2016) |
‘Choose words carefully’ provides my first core principle for revising. Strunk and White (1959, p. 17) restate “choose words carefully” as “make every word tell.” ‘Choose words carefully’ reminds me every word I use affects how easily a reader will understand my writing. “Prefer the short word to the long; the concrete to the abstract; and the familiar to the unfamiliar” (Barzun, 1985, p. 18).
On its own, ‘choose words carefully’ does not guide my specific word changes; I unpack such changes using other principles I discuss below. However, ‘choose words carefully’ guides me by reminding me I must concentrate; I must pay attention to every word. If I cannot do so, then I need to stop editing for a while.
‘Choose words carefully’ also reminds me to use the principle of modular design. I do not have to edit my whole manuscript at once. I can revise smaller parts of my manuscript – individual sections, or even single paragraphs – and then step away when my attention lapses.
Many books about writing suggest taking a break as a method for improving writing (Cameron, 2022; Heard, 2022; Janzer, 2016; King, 2000). “Most people get more done in three one-hour blocks of work separated by breaks than in one four-hour stint” (Janzer, 2016, p. 25). Indeed, the effort and time required to revise makes revising impossible to do without breaks. “I can never get it all down, and besides, there are times when I have to step away from the table, notebook, and turn to face my own life” (Goldberg, 2016, p. 115).
When I recognize I require a break, I must also pay attention to how I break away from my project. I prefer to break away when I know what I will write next. “I always worked until I had something done and I always stopped when I knew what was going to happen next. That way I could be sure of going on the next day” (Hemingway, 1964, p. 12).
I find knowing how to get back to revising just as important as knowing when, and how, to step away from a manuscript. I prefer to re-read the paragraphs I’ve already edited, material which comes right before the next material I plan to revise. Re-reading refreshes my memory about what I’ve done already, gets my head back into my manuscript, and sets the standard for my next editing pass.
Finally, ‘choose words carefully’ reminds me to concentrate on every word, encouraging me to read my words out loud (Becker, 2020). I read out loud slower than I read to myself silently; reading out loud forces me to focus more attention on my words. As I hear what I read out loud, if I hear something strange or find myself being confused, then I know I must do more revising!
My second core principle for revising is ‘think in paragraphs’. For writing, to think in paragraphs is to “make the paragraph the unit of composition” (Strunk & White, 1959, p. 11). The scaffold detailed in Chapter 2 follows the principle by developing paragraphs which communicate one, and only one, topic.
While editing, ‘think in paragraphs’ leads me to check if each paragraph communicates a single topic. If a paragraph tries to express two topics (Figure 2-7), then I must revise. I must split the bad paragraph into two good paragraphs (Figure 2-8), or I must keep the bad paragraph – after eliminating the paragraph’s second topic.
‘Think in paragraphs’ also leads me to check the logical flow between successive paragraphs in each paragraph. Flower (1989) recommends identifying paragraph types (TRIT etc., see Section 4.2) and then examine a paragraph’s sentences to ensure they adhere to the paragraph’s pattern. If the paragraph uses a topic chain structure (Sarnecka, 2019), then I check if each supporting sentence in a paragraph uses the same topic. Germano (2022) shows how reading paragraphs out of order helps evaluate paragraph logic.
‘Think in paragraphs’ also reminds me to reconsider paragraph order. Once I have used my outline to flesh out paragraphs, the sentences I have added might suggest moving the paragraph to a different position in my manuscript. For example, if a paragraph makes a more specific point than I expected, I consider moving it to later in the manuscript; if the paragraph communicates a more general topic, I consider moving it to earlier in the manuscript (assuming I’m organizing topics from general to specific as described in Section 2.3).
Finally, ‘think in paragraphs’ reminds me to check paragraph bridges – the link from a concluding sentence in one paragraph to the topic sentence of the next paragraph. I certainly must check the bridge if I move a paragraph to a new location. However, I check all paragraph bridges whether I have moved paragraphs or not.
Of course, if I find any issue when I use ‘think in paragraphs’ to guide my editing, then I must rewrite. I must also rewrite when I find problems from edits guided by the other principles described below. Because editing requires rewriting, I like to copy my current manuscript (the first draft or a later revision) before I do any new editing. I will only change the wording in the copy. If revision fails, then I can return to an older version. As a result, when editing I produce different versions of the same manuscript which I can use to track my editing.
‘Omit needless words’ provides the third general principle to guide my revising. During outlining (Chapter 2) and drafting (Section 4.2) I deliberately pay little attention to writing style (Elbow, 1981). I recognize I will improve my wording later. However, by not attending to style, I expect to see a wordy first draft.
I know my reader will have trouble understanding a wordy manuscript. I want to make my manuscript concise and plain. “The whole world will tell you, if you care to ask, that your words should be simple & direct. Everybody likes the other fellow’s prose to be plain” (Barzun, 1985, p. 17). As I revise to simplify my manuscript’s language, I try to shorten my paragraphs. An editor performed a favor to Stephen King by providing a formula for shortening a draft: “You need to revise for length. Formula: 2nd draft = 1st draft – 10%” (King, 2000, p. 222). King copied the formula onto cardboard and for display on the wall beside his typewriter.
With such advice in mind, I look for phrases to shorten or remove on every editing pass. For instance, I know when I use ‘of’, I usually have written a phrase which I can trim. Table 4-2’s first three rows illustrate phrase shortening made on Chapter 4’s first draft. Any good book about writing style will provide advice for shortening sentences.
| Table 4-2. Examples of edits which removed unnecessary words from the current chapter. | ||
|---|---|---|
| Original | Revised | Words Removed |
| “The first step of the Chapter 2 method” | “Chapter 2’s first step” | 4 |
| “Parts of my favorite style books” | “My favorite writing books” | 2 |
| “reminds me to take advantage of the principle of modular design” | “reminds me to use the principle of modular design” | 3 |
| “Notes on index cards remind us to cite particular sources in a set of supporting sentences.” | “Notes on index cards remind us to cite particular sources” | 7 |
| “To guide the supporting information we add to create the draft” | “To guide the supporting information we add” | 4 |
| “In filling in the development, we pay more attention to the points being made; we are less concerned about writing style. We don’t worry about writing style because …” | “In filling in the development, we don’t worry about writing style because …” | 17 |
On every editing pass through a manuscript, I also seek unnecessary words to delete. Unnecessary words may state something obvious given the sentence’s context. Unnecessary words may restate an idea already provided by another sentence. Table 4-2’s last three rows illustrate deleting unnecessary words.
Towards my final editing stages, I look for particular words which I can almost always delete. For example, I can almost always delete the word ‘that’ without changing a sentence’s meaning.
Finding unnecessary words requires me to concentrate. As a result, every editing pass reveals more words to remove; I miss such words in earlier passes when my concentration lapses. I find myself frequently amazed at how much I can shorten a manuscript after already removing some unnecessary words. I remember Zinsser’s advice – reduce the original by 50% with the first editing pass; reduce the edited version by 25% with the second editing pass, or King’s cardboard formula.
The fourth general principle which guides my editing is ‘be concrete’. Many style books encourage using concrete language (Leith, 2018; Rhodes, 1995; Schimel, 2012; Strunk & White, 1959; Sword, 2012, 2016). “If those who have studied the art of writing are in accord on any one point, it is this: the surest way to arouse and hold the reader’s attention is by being specific, definite, and concrete” (Strunk & White, 1959, p. 15).
Concrete language uses nouns which describe real world objects; concrete language uses active verbs. I can visualize concrete language more easily than I can visualize counterpart, abstract language. Consider an intentionally abstract sentence: “The investigation was intended to provide a determination of whether embodied cognitivism was beneficial to academic writing.” Now consider its concrete version: “I investigate whether manipulating index cards helps academic writing.” Which sentence do you find easier to visualize, remember or understand?
Style books recommend using concrete language to make your writing easier to understand. “You should prefer concrete language – visual images and real-world situations – to abstract language, because these ask less of the reader’s brain” (Leith, 2018, p. 18). Cognitive psychologists have long known people find concrete ideas easier to visualize and to remember than abstract concepts (Paivio, 1971).
However, academic writing produces an uncomfortable conflict between using concrete and abstract language (Becker, 2020; Schimel, 2012). On the one hand, scientists collect concrete data. On the other hand, scientists typically interpret their data by proposing abstract concepts. I cannot imagine a scientific paper which does not use abstract language at all.
Academic papers usually contain much more abstract language than concrete language (Becker, 2020; Sarnecka, 2019; Schimel, 2012; Sword, 2012, 2016). For instance, academic papers contain many nominalizations – nouns created from verbs or adjectives. Common nominalizations in academic writing include ‘investigation’ (from the verb investigate), ‘discussion’ (from the verb discuss), assumption (from the verb assume), and comparison (from the verb compare). Nominalizations hide the action from which we derive them. Academic papers usually use jargon which only a specialized audience understands. For instance, papers in my general field (cognitive science) often use jargon with specialized meaning, such as ‘cognitivism’, ‘connectionism’, ‘computation’, ‘intentionality’, and ‘representation’.
Because authors aim their academic papers towards a specialized audience, and typical academic articles emphasize abstractions, authors have trouble replacing abstract language with concrete language. We often require abstract language. For example, I had trouble reducing my use of the word ‘cognition’ in a book with the title ‘What is cognitive psychology?’ (Dawson, 2022). Nevertheless, readers find abstract language hard to understand. You need to reduce your use of abstract language; you need to replace abstract language with concrete language as often as possible.
Hence, guided by ‘be concrete’, as I edit, I pay careful attention to my words. Do I use concrete nouns? Are my verbs active? Do I use too many abstractions or nominalizations? By asking such questions as I read word by word, and by replacing abstract words with concrete ones, I make my writing more simple and direct (Barzun, 1985).
‘Use the active voice’ provides the fifth general principle to guide my editing. Many style books encourage using the active voice (Heard, 2022; Leith, 2018; Rhodes, 1995; Schimel, 2012; Strunk & White, 1959). ‘Use the active voice’ complements my fourth principle, ‘be concrete’. “Sentences in the active voice with concrete verbs make vigorous prose” (Rhodes, 1995, p. 102).
When a sentence uses the active voice, the sentence’s subject performs the action named by the sentence’s verb. For example, ‘we need not develop the whole project at once’ uses the active voice because the subject ‘we’ performs the action ‘develop’. In contrast, when a sentence uses the passive voice, the sentence’s subject does not perform the sentence’s action. For instance, ‘the whole project need not be developed at once’ uses the passive voice, because the subject ‘project’ does not perform the action ‘be developed’.
Leith (2018) provides an easily remembered test to determine whether a sentence uses the active or passive voice. Leith suggests adding the phrase ‘by zombies’ after the sentence’s main verb. If the modified sentence seems grammatical – like ‘the whole project need not be developed by zombies at once’ –then the sentence uses the passive voice. If the sentence does not seem grammatical – like ‘we need not develop by zombies the whole project at once’ – then the sentence uses the active voice.
I try to use the active voice as often as possible, making my sentences become concrete and easier to understand. Because the active voice demands present tense, I also wind up using fewer passive ‘be-verbs’ or past tense verbs like ‘was’ or ‘were’ (Sword, 2016). The active voice “is clear, concise and direct. It is also visual and evocative” (Schimel, 2012, p. 134).
However, controversy arises when writers use the active voice – or other clarifying techniques – in scientific writing (Becker, 2020). Most scientific articles use the passive voice, which suits research’s past tense (the reported research has already been conducted!) as well as the aloof, objective third person sentence framing frequently seen in a scientific report. Students often learn to avoid the active voice and to avoid using the first person ‘I’ or ‘we’. I do not steer my students towards the passive voice because writing in the active voice is better writing.
