ARE REVISIONS BAD?

In the text Thinking with Type one of the first arguments that Lupton makes is that revisions make the original work "inconsistent", she states that "Since the rise of digital tools for writing and publishing, manuscripts originals have but vanished." I believe the point she is making is that because the rise of technology and print, revisions are replacing original works and therefore the original idea or argument is lost or unknown. I see the point she is making because technology, and more specifically the internet, allows us to have instant access to original literary works and therefore anyone can write a revision of that work. This does have the potential to persuade readers against the argument of the original work, but I think Lupton is underestimating peoples ability to think critically. When one reads a literary work they aren't necessarily reading it to buy into the argument and they are smart enough to know that the literary work they are reading may not be the original. Often times when we read literary works the purpose of reading them is to see the authors argument and that can help us determine our argument, this is not a bad thing and it doesn't destroy the original argument. Debating and arguing the truth, as we have previously discussed, is vital to humans and it is beneficial to our intelligence. Lupton seems to assume that we buy into everything we read, and that may be true for some people, but I think most of us use our critical thinking skills when reading a literary work and decide for ourselves what we believe to be "true".