Revision Process

[shemthepenman]

Poetry isn't science. And even with science, knowing history and biography in relation to the scientist affects how we understand the theory. I don't think there's much reason to look at the poem as separate from the poet. Poetry is a subjective humanistic experience, there are of course objective standards and taste, still the author exists, the personal connection between the reader and the author is important.

You must have been the bloke cheering the van that knocked down Barthes.  Me, I lean quite heavily toward the post-structuralist ideas and I don't care if they don't fit with the cult of the I that is endemic in poetry today.  Once the initial writing process is done, everything else is reading, even when I come back to it myself.  And every reading rewrites it, whether literally or in the reception of the reader.  

Personally, I couldn't give two shits if I connect with an "author" or not.  Poetry for me is and probably always will be an intellectual experience rather than some visceral response.  If a poem moves me to tears, it's not because I feel for the author, it's because the author has reminded me of something or made me examine an aspect of the human experience and the emotion is mine, not the poet's.  A poet might be loaded with emotion when he/she writes, in blood on the tear-stained page or whatever, but if there's no intellectual connection then I have no reason to care.  

If someone actively addresses me and wants to engage me in a conversation about his/her poem, I'm happy to do that.  Otherwise, I have plenty of other people in my life upon whom I can practice my editorial genius and be received with just as little appreciation as by poets here.

i agree, and would go one further about the cult of the i. i think it is pandemic across culture in general. i recently heard 3 separate surveys were carried out showing 19% of children under 10 want to to be famous, an aspiration second only to 'being rich' [22%], and not at all closely followed by professions such as doctor or firefighter. ironically, just another fashion which, counter to its supposed intention, actually makes everyone chasing it fail at the one thing they should intrinsically succeed at, being unique.

i say this as i stare at the huge glass framed poster of a young Bob Dylan hanging in the corner of my room  but on that note, of course, it is lucky such a person had the cumulative experiences and personality to write songs that i really like--there is obviously a connection between work produced and personality, i don't doubt it; but, we all know, that an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters could theoretically produce the same body of work in a week. and if that were the case, i would like the songs just as much. like you said [i think you said], for me it is all about words on the page.
although, i am not entirely sold on the idea of intellectual connection being primary. but i think i may be misunderstanding what you mean. i see no discrepancy between an emotive poem and a well-written poem. or, rather, a well-written poem is primary. Dylan lyrics can make me cry and to me, this is just a sign that he is a great songwriter. he is, for want of a better phrase, technically gifted.

anyway, i don't know. it just irritates me a bit this whole 'i write for myself' attitude. it seems so disingenuous or deluded. not to mention it loses some of its gravitas given the fact the people that say it post everything on the internet. i mean, if one genuinely only writes for oneself, stop inflicting it on the rest of us. i understand this is a simplification of the idea, but still. . .