Danger of over editing?

[brynmawr1]

Question- Is there a danger of over editing making a poem, maybe structurally/technically better but somehow sterilized/generic; the writer's voice removed?  I have been struggling with this issue in offering my own critiques lately and it just occurred to me to ask what others might think.
Thanks,
Bryn

[CRNDLSM]

Try writing both poems, and see which you prefer?

[TranquillityBase]

For sure.

I feel this, not so much in giving critique as in receiving it.  It can be overwhelming.  I guess I never considered it the other way around though.

However, I remember Mark Becker or Knot quoting to this to me:

A poem is never finished; it's always an accident that puts a stop to it—i.e. gives it to the public. (Paul Valery) often quoted in W. H. Auden' s paraphrase, ‘A poem is never finished, only abandoned’

[dukealien]

For sure.

I feel this, not so much in giving critique as in receiving it.  It can be overwhelming.  I guess I never considered it the other way around though.

However, I remember Mark Becker quoting to this to me:

A poem is never finished; it's always an accident that puts a stop to it—i.e. gives it to the public. (Paul Valery) often quoted in W. H. Auden' s paraphrase, ‘A poem is never finished, only abandoned’

Or, "A poem is flypaper for critique - you never get the last one."

[Tiger the Lion]

A few things I keep in my toolbox on the subject of editing...

1. Never delete a first draft. Just don't. 
2. Adding to a poem (that you care about) will almost always feel like an awkward sequel.
3. Subtracting from a poem (that you care about) will almost always feel like a loss.
4. There are more intelligent, objective insights on poetry here at the Pigpen than a public library.
5. Always be grateful for those insights. Even if you don't use them for an edit now, keep them in the damn toolbox. 
6. There's no hurry. Do not edit to appease the crits you may get- sometimes a simple thank you and some time and space is more prudent.

[brynmawr1]

Thanks everyone for their insights.  I, too, get overwhelmed by different opinions and not being that confident in my own process find it hard to say no.  Tiger, I was struck by your point of never deleting a first draft.  There is something about that first draft that often contains the purest representation of the intent behind the piece.  I guess my original question is centered around that phenomenon and the difficulty in editing a poem trying to make it better only to lose the ineffable heart of the poem.  What's the saying, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good",  or something to that effect?

[rowens]

I hope that Marker Becker isn't dead.


The I, that is me, never thinks in terms of "this piece".


There is objective criteria for what a poem is.


And people think that they are poets, and can do what they want, and what they write will be a poem.



the answer to you questions is   


I think that. I am of the Romantic worldview.


If you are not willing to carry that zeitgeist on your back

:

There is the tension in what you write as a risk and how what all you write will be compared with what else you write.

Like an ego!

[wasellajam]

Question- Is there a danger of over editing making a poem, maybe structurally/technically better but somehow sterilized/generic; the writer's voice removed?  I have been struggling with this issue in offering my own critiques lately and it just occurred to me to ask what others might think.
Thanks,
Bryn

This issue is always timely. I love getting a lot of ideas on how to improve a poem. I love the challenge of trying to implement them and I especially enjoy the conversations about every nuance of the poem. And then new edits bring additional critiques. In the past it was not unusual for me to edit the poor things to death. Rowens is a master at sniffing out a dead poem that has lost what was special about it. Sometimes I miss my original poem and the final edit is the original with a few tweaks. I'm trying to be more sane about it this time around, but who knows, reverting to a previous version is always an option.

For me, a lot depends on the type of poem it is. For me free verse will start out pretty much the way I want it, with a specific energy that probably shouldn't be messed with too much. When writing in a form I find that for me the polishing is necessary, when I look back at the mess of the original I can appreciate how much all the polishing helped.

When giving crit I think giving as much as you have is best, one of the great things about this site is all the different voices. If 3 people notice the same weakness it's probably best to see if you can strengthen the poem there. If 3 people love something it's best to protect it. I think everyone should comment on everything when they have the time and it's up to the poet to cherry pick.

[milo]

Question- Is there a danger of over editing making a poem, maybe structurally/technically better but somehow sterilized/generic; the writer's voice removed?  I have been struggling with this issue in offering my own critiques lately and it just occurred to me to ask what others might think.
Thanks,
Bryn

This issue is always timely. I love getting a lot of ideas on how to improve a poem. I love the challenge of trying to implement them and I especially enjoy the conversations about every nuance of the poem. And then new edits bring additional critiques. In the past it was not unusual for me to edit the poor things to death. Rowens is a master at sniffing out a dead poem that has lost what was special about it. Sometimes I miss my original poem and the final edit is the original with a few tweaks. I'm trying to be more sane about it this time around, but who knows, reverting to a previous version is always an option.

For me, a lot depends on the type of poem it is. For me free verse will start out pretty much the way I want it, with a specific energy that probably shouldn't be messed with too much. When writing in a form I find that for me the polishing is necessary, when I look back at the mess of the original I can appreciate how much all the polishing helped.

When giving crit I think giving as much as you have is best, one of the great things about this site is all the different voices. If 3 people notice the same weakness it's probably best to see if you can strengthen the poem there. If 3 people love something it's best to protect it. I think everyone should comment on everything when they have the time and it's up to the poet to cherry pick.

meh - i don't know - I realize that sometimes we lose the original seed of an idea or get off track but sometimes we end up with an entirely new idea for a poem and we can always go back, nothing is ever lost

[dukealien]

...

meh - i don't know - I realize that sometimes we lose the original seed of an idea or get off track but sometimes we end up with an entirely new idea for a poem and we can always go back, nothing is ever lost

Must respectfully disagree.  For me, it's:  get an idea, jot it down, write the poem (which may evolve into something slightly, or very, different in the process).  Alternate path, look at the jot, idea's gone.  The words are there, but the constellation surrounding them has vanished.  Gestalt?  I almost religiously keep all my interim states of a poem, but it's just paranoia about losing the *current* one, not any thought of returning to an earlier state and branching from there.  That helicopter has left the embassy; it's not coming back.

Which is not to say everyone works this way, or anyone does.  Heraclitus said you cannot cross the same river twice.  If I can even find my way back to that piece of riverbank, and the river is still exactly the same - frozen in text or something - I still can't recapture the state of... what was I talking about?

[milo]

...

meh - i don't know - I realize that sometimes we lose the original seed of an idea or get off track but sometimes we end up with an entirely new idea for a poem and we can always go back, nothing is ever lost

Must respectfully disagree.  For me, it's:  get an idea, jot it down, write the poem (which may evolve into something slightly, or very, different in the process).  Alternate path, look at the jot, idea's gone.  The words are there, but the constellation surrounding them has vanished.  Gestalt?  I almost religiously keep all my interim states of a poem, but it's just paranoia about losing the *current* one, not any thought of returning to an earlier state and branching from there.  That helicopter has left the embassy; it's not coming back.

Which is not to say everyone works this way, or anyone does.  Heraclitus said you cannot cross the same river twice.  If I can even find my way back to that piece of riverbank, and the river is still exactly the same - frozen in text or something - I still can't recapture the state of... what was I talking about?

This is perfectly justified as well - there is that germ of passion that drives the initial burst of writing and it is never possible to recover it.  Of course that doesn't make it better but sometimes as writers it makes us feel better about it.