I could subject my writing to scrupulous and excessive editing and critiquing by many different readers, but would this cause my writing to trend toward being better?
That’s what we might expect. Like the blueprints for a space rocket. The greater the number of scientists, engineers, and physicists who have all reviewed and double-checked and triple-checked the plans for the rocket, the higher its chances of success, right?
Well, maybe.
Assuming all the reviewers were intelligent and none of them actually made an edit or suggestion that was, in fact, erroneous—then yes, we would expect the rocket ship to get better with more review.
But what about a piece of art?
Something for which there is no objectively right answer, like there is for math and science. I guess it partly depends on your definition of art, and your standards for “good” art.
Take cooking, for example. There seem to be some objective rules of quality. If a dish is burnt or undercooked, then it would break these rules. If a dish is not even edible, it may be difficult to consider it culinary at all. But once these objective rules are satisfied, then we enter into the world of taste. What delights one culinary critic may disgust another. And the disgust of the one may not regress to any objective rule; it could just be their personal taste.
Now, if we turn our attention back to writing, there are certainly some of these objective rules for quality that apply, like the rules of spelling and grammar. But to let too many editors comment on the “heart” of the work based on their personal tastes, and not based on any objective rules, may cause the piece to become “watered down” and lacking in the originality and individuality that made it any good in the first place.
Originally written on October 24, 2020.