I agree entirely with Feidman’s outlook on the pathological meta-revision process being nothing less than beneficial. The revisions of revisions are a natural part of the process, and in fact, is what intrigued me about the essay most, being that I have encountered the same procedural results in works prior to those done in this class. When a piece is edited in the respect that the piece Feidman had discussed had been, then immediately after it has been revised even the first time, the piece is viewed as something entirely different, who’s entirety, previous revisions included, are subject to change depending on how the new puzzle pieces fit into the rest of the puzzle. I also found the use of the word “pathological” to be more than fitting, for it is nothing lass than compulsive and obsessive and tedious. In the end however, entirely necessary.
↧