However, the revision process still presented its own difficulties. For one, I took notes as to what I needed to do, but they were not entirely detailed enough and I wasn’t actually quite sure what I needed to include in my revised version. For two (?), I wasn’t actually sure if the revision was supposed to stay within the original word-count restraints as the original. I think the hardest time I had was trying to include everything that needed to be included without bloating my paper beyond what it was “supposed” to be. As a result, I found myself leaving a few things out.
Additionally, I’m still not entirely sure if I am making my point clearly enough. The whole idea of a “process” is very much a personal and abstract thing and I feel like I need to make it more clear to the reader just what exactly I mean; however, I don’t know if this is more a self-demeaning issue or if it’s actually real. I would like to get an outside opinion on what exactly it seems like my paper is saying and if it all ties together in a relatively coherent, cogent manner.
Lastly, I can never tell if my metaphorical characters tie in well enough to make sense without breaking the flow of the paper. This is another thing I want an outside opinion on. I want to include them (as a means of broadening the scope to more than just writers) but I don’t want to feel like the paper is constantly breaking from thought to bring in outside examples. I want these to feel like a natural inclusion to the argument.
]]>