[soneca]

I agree that consistently good writing is hard. But I also believe that consistently not bad writing is easy.

Not everything we write is long, complex or important enough to demand a research phase and external reviews. I would like the author to have spent more time in the Draft phase.

It is the first time I heard about the 5-draft technique. My impression is that it kind of assumes that you know what to look for when editing your own texts. I am starting a newsletter with written communication tips for developers and my main point is to direct people to what they should be paying attention while writing.

I distilled it to an acronym (just for fun): Miirror

Message - before writing it, think about the message you want to communicate.

Information - one part of the message is what you want to communicate - facts, data, instructions, requests, etc.

Intention - another part of the message is how you want to communicate - mood, state of mind, tone, etc.

Reader - while writing it, think about the person who will read your text.

Rapport - one dimension of caring about the reader is about creating empathy with the reader to improve the effectiveness of the communication.

Order - another dimension is about organizing your message (conceptually and visually) so your reader never feels lost or wasting time.

Rewrite - after writing it, rewrite it.

more detailed version: https://writingfordevelopers.substack.com/p/miirror-a-framew...

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

Are rewrites supposed to destroy the soul of the original idea? That's what mine do. Do you have any tips for that?

Edit: Why's poignant guide to ruby would be hard to rewrite imho, I'm guessing it would be hard for him to rewrite too.

[munificent]

> Are rewrites supposed to destroy the soul of the original idea?

No. They are supposed to distill, crystallize, and intensify it.

> That's what mine do. Do you have any tips for that?

You may be editing by imagining a hostile reader. That tends to force you to be defensive, remove things that are potentially disagreeable, add lots of hedges, etc. All of that waters it down.

Some amount of that can be important — accuracy matters and it's good to address the questions and concerns likely to come to the reader's mind. But I think it's still important to presume a good faith, charitable reader, and write for them.

> Edit: Why's poignant guide to ruby would be hard to rewrite imho, I'm guessing it would be hard for him to rewrite too.

It's a common mistake to assume that writing that reads as effortless and spontaneous was written that way. I don't know about _why, but many writers whose writing is noted for flowing naturally get there by painstakingly honing and refining those words over innumerable drafts.

It takes a lot of work to make it look easy.

[singhrac]

Wow, I never thought about how I was imagining my reader while editing - I should keep this in mind while editing papers for submission.

[soneca]

Rewriting is about checking if each of the previous concerns is attended. By "soul" I assume you are talking about the message (both information and intention).

So rewrite is more like refactoring code: you change how it is presented not its function.

A tip would be write down your message in bullet points beforehand and, while rewriting it, check if you haven't missed a point you wanted to make.

I also believe that this acronym also establishes an order of priority for the concerns, from more important to least important: 1) Information, 2) Intention, 3) Rapport and 4) Order.

Your soul should be on the first two and they are the most important to be preserved (writing or rewriting).