Revision is deeply rooted in academic norms and values regarding the importance of critical reflection and transparency of arguments, and not the least regarding the notion of research as a collective accomplishment. Over the last couple of decades, however the practice of revision has increasingly become interwoven with the institutionalized academic field logic of publish or perish, turning revision into a matter of opportunistically relating to normative editorial decisions based on blind peer reviews to be able to stay in the business. In this article, the aim is to destabilize the notion and practices of revision by questioning some of its taken-for-granted assumptions and challenging these assumptions by introducing an alternative approach to revision. Instead of talking about revision, I propose the use of devision, and instead of revising texts, I propose engaging in devising texts. Devision is conceptualized as a process consisting of four aspects of textual meaning exploration ‚ intentio auctoris, intentio opus, intentio opera, and intentio lectoris; and the art of devision is presented and problematized as a constellation of four interpretative actions: self-reflexivity, distancing, composing, and projection. In the last section, the art of devision's relation to meaningfulness is addressed in a normative and somewhat idealistic manner.