{"id":12185,"date":"2020-03-04T13:24:47","date_gmt":"2020-03-04T13:24:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/transfer.writingcommons.org\/?post_type=section&p=12185"},"modified":"2024-09-11T12:41:03","modified_gmt":"2024-09-11T11:41:03","slug":"revise-for-substantive-prose","status":"publish","type":"section","link":"https:\/\/writingcommons.org\/section\/writing-process\/revision\/revise-for-substantive-prose\/","title":{"rendered":"Revise for Substantive Prose"},"content":{"rendered":"
Critics may fault writers or speakers for lacking substance<\/em>. Critics (e.g., clients, bosses, teachers, peers) say a text lacks substance when they perceive it to be underdeveloped, superficial, boring, illogical, disorganized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n See Also: If someone tells you your ideas, texts, or presentations lack substance<\/em>, you are wise to seriously assess and prioritize the critique(s)<\/a> with an open mind.<\/a> Being critiqued for having poor substance<\/em> is a global critique. In some ways this is a vague, overgeneralized critique.<\/a> So, if you are told this the first response might be to ask for concrete, specific language<\/a> about where and how your prose confused the audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes, in real life, however, readers lack a vocabulary for critique or a distaste for confrontation<\/a>. If your readers tell you they found your work to be a bit boring, if a client didn’t respond to you in a business situation or if a teacher gave you a low grade for content, you may feel a defensive impulse to ignore that feedback. So, the first step in revision for a critique of poor substance is to be open<\/a> to your critics’ ideas and reading experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Substantive Prose<\/a>
Substantive Prose<\/em> concerns what<\/em> a rhetor communicates as opposed to how<\/em> a rhetor communicates. Substance is essence. Core matter. If your document lacks substance, it is frivolous, a waste the of reader’s time. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n