Lamott vs. Dila: Who’s Correct?

I’ve always written using the same strategy that I’ve developed as a young student. When faced with a writing assignment, I write everything at once with no interruptions (hopefully), proof read and make any arrangements and edits I feel necessary, have someone else (usually my father) read the text, make revisions based on his feedback, proof read one last time, then submit the assignment. This is a strategy very similar to what Lamott discusses in her article, and after reading articles by Lamott and Dila, I began to compare their opinions, and even compare them to my own. She mentions that everyone’s first drafts are “shitty” and, at least in my personal experience, I agree. Dila, while making a valid argument that “not everyone’s first draft is shitty”, comes off as pretentious to me. While I agree Lamott’s claim may not be relatable to everyone, to say “my first drafts are never shitty” seems like a lie to me, or at least an omission. I don’t think it’s possible for every first draft you’ve ever written to be good. I also believe Dila’s house building analogy doesn’t really work. While in the sense of building a house, to not ensure you’ve gone about the process correctly after each step will result in a poorly built house, I don’t think it necessarily proves his point the way he feels it does. When writing a paper, one can argue that constantly stopping to fix any mistakes before all of your ideas were put into writing, might cause you to lose your train of thought, and your ideas may not be expressed the way you intended. Therefore, while I personally relate to Lamott’s article, overall I don’t think it’s fair to make bold claims relating to everyone involved, when everyone writes differently.