Let’s face it; Harris is describing a completely different form of writing than what Sullivan had described. Harris is talking about rewriting, or other words the act of “striv[ing] to represent the work of another, to translate the language and ideas of a text into words of your own, coming to terms.” Harris is a man writing formal, nonfictional papers focused ideas that have been developed over time. The writing is set out to use the ideas of others in your own paper to strengthen your own ideas without plagiarizing the ideas of others. The biggest thing to do is to read the ideas and works of others and translate them. To understand them. Reading is understanding a text that we need. “Texts don’t simply reveal their meanings to us; we need to make sense of the texts we encounter.” The combination of reading texts and ideas to understand them gives us a greater ability to use them in our own writing. We may just simply be reusing a text in our own writing, but we interpret it differently and thus may present our meaning of the text. Multiple people could see it different ways and thus have different opinions of it. Now, to compare the ideas of writing between Sullivan and Harris, I can’t. Sullivan is an on the spot writer that portrays his immediate ideas onto the paper. He doesn’t need the ideas of others to strengthen his own or to develop any. Harris uses the ideas of others to build his writing into what it is. Without the ideas of others, he has no paper. There is no comparison between the two ideas of writing other than the fact that they put their ideas onto paper. They develop their ideas differently, but do it different ways in order to develop to different types of writings. I don’t find if fair to compare the two author’s ideas of writing because they do describe the writing processes of two different forms of texts.