A genuine question on my part: to what extent is post revision plausible? Should you stop at going back and fixing spelling mistakes, or is it logical to completely revamp an old post without starting over from scratch? I’d like to discuss the possibilities of such actions.
Or as I may see fit to phrase it – how much do your old posts matter? I have a lot of really shitty old posts, but I also have a couple of gems buried under the sand. Now, obviously I want to make it easier for someone to find these gems, while still diverting them from the posts that I am not proud of or do not consider representative of my opinion anymore. After all, reading my blog would not necessarily all be based on my output from the time that you become a reader onward – otherwise, I would have to keep restating old points for the sake of an ever-growing audience. Therefor, if you want to see what kind of interesting things I have once said, then you will have to venture into the archives.
I’ve taken what feels like an obvious step already a few weeks ago. I went back to a bunch of my really old posts that are outright horrible and at ends with my current thoughts, and put labels at the top stating “[NOTE: This post is very old and no longer reflective of my opinions or writing style.]” This way, I don’t have to delete my old posts (as they are surely fun to look at) but no one will confuse them for my opinion. I’ve also gone and created a number of pages to help direct people in the path of posts that I am actually proud of – there are the Reviews, Highlights, etc. pages that can help someone looking for something specific, and then I added the ‘Best of Fuzakenna!’ page for an easy guide to anything on my site that is honestly worth reading. I haven’t completed these sections – there are a number of episodic and show-specific posts that I am still looking for a place for, but that’s for later.
However, even among my ‘best of’ posts, there are a number of posts that were simply written at a time before I was as good of a writer as I am now. Take, for instance, my ‘Depth Versus Chemistry‘ post. I love the points made in this post to death and I cite it quite frequently. However, I know that the post is not very well written at all, and it’s a little embarrassing to show off. I feel like I should do this post over to make it more presentable.
How should I go about this? There seem to be two options – I could either revise the already existing post, or exile it and do a new post restating the point in better language. Now, the latter works well as a way of reintroducing readers to the concept, however, how many times will this happen? Will I keep having to republish this post every year as my writing style gets better? If we are under the assumption that honestly interested readers will go and read my backlog, then they will be more obliged to visit a revised version of the post, will they not?
There are a number of posts that I want to revise. In my early days as a blogger, I didn’t even spell-check my posts, and even I have a hard time reading them nowadays. Aside from the ones that aren’t really worth salvaging, I feel I should fix the problem. I also keep seeing the flaws in my style up until this point. Re-reading my Simoun review, I decided that I wanted to trim a lot of the fat on it and curve my language in other directions – This would be easy enough to do. However, re-reading my Darker Than Black review, I want to almost entirely re-write large parts of the post. Does this remain a revision, or does it warrant a new post?
Before I part you with these questions, I bring up the point of Roger Ebert. I love Roger Ebert’s reviews, but what I really love is his ‘great movies‘ reviews. In these, he revisits a movie that he reviewed years before, and in some cases states that he may feel a little differently about the piece of work. This made me wonder if it wouldn’t be wise to go back and edit his old reviews, or if it’s better to have the two different standpoints of his original impressions and then his thoughts some time later.
I’m very interested in how you think this should be handled.