And this counters with Dean Wesley Smith -- and others -- who, essentially, are advocating publishing one's first drafts. They say the art is destroyed by revision. This seems almost an analogy to a musician publishing his demo tapes or studio jams rather than developing the piece to its (arguable) full potential.Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:... what historian Andrew Roberts said about Winston Churchill. Writing about an exhibition of Churchilliana he notes:
"Here was a man who could not write or say a boring sentence, but the reason was - as these documents show time and again - that he would rework and revise with a perfectionist's commitment until he got it absolutely right.
The result was ultimately sublime, of course, but it was not without an extraordinary amount of time spent continually rewriting until he was happy with the cadences, rhythms and meaning of his words. He respected the power of words, and this exhibition shows just how much effort he put into making them live in his readers' and listeners' minds."
The only reconciliation I can see between the two -- and I think what Smith is saying -- is to raise the quality of one's first effort, through practice.
Musically, this would be like creating near masterpieces on first takes. It does happen, though not every time. But then the ninth take doesn't always do it, either.