Revision Process

[Lizzie]

As a reader, I have often spent hours on a single poster's poem and returned multiple times if the poem sparked my interest or if the writer was doing interesting things in the revision process or if the poster and raised some interesting dialogue.  On the same note, I have posted once, read the revision and felt completely disengaged by it so never returned.

I think you're on to something, because I think that it's natural to spend more time on poems that you like and that hold something intriguing for you as a reader. But, sometimes I find something intriguing in the process of doing an edit -- maybe I thought I hated it and then doing a line by line crit reveals something I didn't previously see. That to say that working with something over time can spark interest where there was none initially.

[shemthepenman]

I believe the author is the authority as a bad person, a bad writer or an insane person. I believe that the author is always right no matter if anyone agrees with him. Only his fate resides in others.

---

You know the old saying, An artist should always go out on a limb whether there's a tree or not.

yes, i think we have an ideological difference of opinion. yours seems very conservative to me. each to their own.
however, the fact still remains that there will be no earth shattering rupture in the space-time continuum if one were to post an edit that one didn't necessarily agree with. and one might say, "yeah, but what's the point if i don't agree with it?" but this could be countered by, "well what's the point of posting poems on a website primarily geared towards improvement if, due to the high opinion you have of yourself and your poems, you literally have no intention of editing them?" what i am suggesting is, once you have made the decision to post and receive feedback, what's the harm in seeing it through, unrestrained by ego or preciousness or sentimentality? because, and i think you are old enough to appreciate this, no one cares.

i did have to think about the personality issue you raised before. and like i said, the personality of the poet is important. but, if someone has given a reasonable negative critique, then it should be an indication that the personality of the poet/poem isn't enough to save it from criticism. i often read poems on here that i really like and the personality/voice is unique and interesting. i don't critique these poems. i enjoy them. however, i read a terrible 'no one understands me' poem without spaces between the punctuation and all i see is the cliche of a poet trying to be unique and interesting. and so it is fair game.*

*this doesn't mean that i only critique terrible poems without a unique or interesting voice, or that i don't critique poems that i really like.

[milo]

As a reader, I have often spent hours on a single poster's poem and returned multiple times if the poem sparked my interest or if the writer was doing interesting things in the revision process or if the poster and raised some interesting dialogue.  On the same note, I have posted once, read the revision and felt completely disengaged by it so never returned.

I think you're on to something, because I think that it's natural to spend more time on poems that you like and that hold something intriguing for you as a reader. But, sometimes I find something intriguing in the process of doing an edit -- maybe I thought I hated it and then doing a line by line crit reveals something I didn't previously see. That to say that working with something over time can spark interest where there was none initially.

Well, like I said, sometimes I am just intrigued by the dialog. I have spent a good deal of time on poems I didn't care for at first just because I was enjoying the process or because I enjoyed interacting with the poet.

I guess it pays to be interesting if you are looking to start a dialog about your poetry.

[Leanne]

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.

[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. . .

[rowens]

The simple point of my argument is that the individual should, not want to do any old thing and call it art, but want to do their best, on their own, to be the best, on their own but in relation to others. Other writers who can dwarf them, readers who can judge their work no good. So it's an endless struggle for artistic merit, not a self-centered self apologist. I can understand an artist suffering failure, taking it on the nose. I don't like all the humble talk between artists and their artist friends. It comes through in the work.

[shemthepenman]

The simple point of my argument is that the individual should, not want to do any old thing and call it art, but want to do their best, on their own, to be the best, on their own but in relation to others. Other writers who can dwarf them, readers who can judge their work no good. So it's an endless struggle for artistic merit, not a self-centered self-apologist. I can understand an artist suffering failure, taking it on the nose. I don't like all the humble talk between artists and their artist friends. It comes through in the work.

understood. and i definitely agree with your point about this pretend humility. i think there is a way to be confident and not be a dick about it, though [but, at the end of the day, so what if you're a dick about it--most artists are arrogant wankers anyway, regardless of how humble they pretend to be. and, quality speaks for itself, wanker or not.]. but all this my poetry is shit nonsense some people like to preface their work with is tedious and just as egocentric.

i suppose i just don't get the 'on their own' bit, is all. but it's no big deal. edit, don't edit. it makes no difference to. . . well, anyone. i just don't see the alternative as being a big deal either. and i think the benefits far outweigh the risks. in fact, there are no risks only benefits in making an edit. if it doesn't work blame the twat that made the suggestion. if it works take credit for creating the core of the piece and recognising a good suggestion when you saw one. or, failing those dickish moves, accept nothing in this life is a singular effort. that is true humility.

oh, and just something i recently thought after your original comment about not editing but 'doing better next time'. that's a shifty way of going about things, in my opinion. it's like being given advice that you utilise at a later date but without having to give credit to the person who gave the advice; and still live under the pretence of doing it on your own.

oh well, i think i am spent with this discussion now. it was interesting. i learnt stuff. fanks.

[rowens]

I mean doing better in another poem, a poem under different circumstances, having nothing to do with the failed one. Rather that than botch it then keep trying to fix it. A novelist comes out with a book that gets panned and that's that. He doesn't keep releasing a different version until more people like it. You learn from the critique of others, but I think you should have work to stand for the times before you learned these new things. Your newer work is better than your older work but your older poems are still poems.

[shemthepenman]

I mean doing better in another poem, a poem under different circumstances, having nothing to do with the failed one. Rather that than botch it then keep trying to fix it. A novelist comes out with a book that gets panned and that's that. He doesn't keep releasing a different version until more people like it. You learn from the critique of others, but I think you should have work to stand for the times before you learned these new things. Your newer work is better than your older work but your older poems are still poems.

just when i thought i was out, they pull me back in! we should try to make this the longest threaded discussion on the pigpen. . . or even the WORLD!

yeah, well i am sure that all makes sense to you, and fair play. and i can feel myself arguing from a dogmatic position that i probably do not entirely agree with. however, i should just like to point out that in my original comment i was talking hypothetically about infinite revisions and immediate edits. i recognise that practically edits may not be justified. and of course, there is a certain psychological barrier, as well, in some cases.
also, your novelist example complements what i had said before. a novelist doesn't keep releasing new versions of a book until more people like it [although you are conflating popularity with quality, but maybe i'll come back to that later]. but you, we, are in the fortunate position of being able to edit here to our hearts content, consequence free. also, a novelist has certainly self-edited, but will also have let people he respects and trusts read it and listened to their criticisms and suggestions and possibly make edits accordingly. but, i will concede, if you are going to publish your poems, and that publication has a deadline, then you don't have the luxury of experimentation and should probably leave it in the hands of the proofreader. and let's face it, by that stage it has already gone through enough hands, under enough pairs of influential eyes.

[rowens]

Poetry is one long discussion most of the time. . . . I consider errors that are found during proofreading to be small failures, even when I'm the one doing the proofreading of my own writing, so I correct them. Not always but in most cases I find the struggle for perfection despite my imperfect abilities to be the driving force when I write. Each poem mostly being a testament to that failed attempt. And I rarely enjoy reading anything in itself, what I like is struggling with what I'm reading, and admiring the effort and experiences the writer went through to write the thing.

[Leanne]

A novelist comes out with a book that gets panned and that's that. He doesn't keep releasing a different version until more people like it.

The big difference between releasing a novel and workshopping a poem is that long before a novel is released it should have gone through several editing stages. Rarely -- if ever -- does a novel come out in toto straight from the novelist's pen to your eyeballs. Writing a novel is a commercial venture (despite any number that fail dismally due to all sorts of reasons, not always directly related to the writer's ability or the quality of the work) and as such, there are plenty of people who make a living out of editing. Unfortunately, there are very few people in the world who can afford to be full-time (or even reasonably part-time) poetry editors, so if we want a serious, discerning eye run over our poems before moving them out into the wider world then a workshop like this one (and in fact, there are no other workshops like this one) is pretty much our only option unless we happen to live in a nicely artistic community (and even then, it's not necessarily hippie weirdo advice that makes a poem better).

As consumers, we only get to see the "finished product". That finished product is, for the most part, the result of many failures, revisions, rewrites and rejections. Even though I feel quite confident that I can revise on my own these days, I am always grateful for a critical eye that picks up on something I might never have thought of myself.

[Lizzie]

I find it almost incredible to hear that others don't think about the author as they read -- I think about the author almost continuously. In fact, I like to read a bio of the author before I even get into the work. I love to see how a person's life experience and training could be impacting the choices that they make as an author. Topics, recurring themes, word choice...I can see the person reflected in all of these things; that's part of what makes poetry interesting to me. I just read a great article about E. E. Cummings and his background, in fact: http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/the-r...-cumm.html

[shemthepenman]

A novelist comes out with a book that gets panned and that's that. He doesn't keep releasing a different version until more people like it.

The big difference between releasing a novel and workshopping a poem is that long before a novel is released it should have gone through several editing stages.  Rarely -- if ever -- does a novel come out in toto straight from the novelist's pen to your eyeballs. Writing a novel is a commercial venture (despite any number that fail dismally due to all sorts of reasons, not always directly related to the writer's ability or the quality of the work) and as such, there are plenty of people who make a living out of editing.  Unfortunately, there are very few people in the world who can afford to be full-time (or even reasonably part-time) poetry editors, so if we want a serious, discerning eye run over our poems before moving them out into the wider world then a workshop like this one (and in fact, there are no other workshops like this one) is pretty much our only option unless we happen to live in a nicely artistic community (and even then, it's not necessarily hippie weirdo advice that makes a poem better).  

As consumers, we only get to see the "finished product".  That finished product is, for the most part, the result of many failures, revisions, rewrites and rejections.  Even though I feel quite confident that I can revise on my own these days, I am always grateful for a critical eye that picks up on something I might never have thought of myself.

that's what i said. i want full credit for this concept. i am The Originator! oh wait, am i not special :/

[Leanne]

One of the only useful things I learned during my years at uni was that there are several different schools of thought when it comes to cultural and artistic theory, and many different focuses for criticism -- each as valid as the next, but more useful when a reader does not adhere to only one of them. Recognising that people read for a variety of reasons (reasons that may change from day to day, moment to moment even) is important to a writer. I disagree on some very fundamental levels with Rowen, but I respect him as a writer and as a reader, and find that despite almost diametrically opposed thinking, we have many intersections. Finding those intersections and celebrating them is one of the joys of a community like this one (and remember, there is no community like this one -- I am not contractually obliged to say that but I'll do it anyway!).

As shem said, "I write for myself" is a bullshit argument. You may write for pleasure (weirdo), but a good portion of that pleasure comes not just from the writing but from the audience response. Otherwise, stick it in a drawer and be crazy cat lady forevermore.

[Lizzie]

 i often read poems on here that i really like and the personality/voice is unique and interesting. i don't critique these poems. i enjoy them.

You should tell them what's working for you. Positive feedback can be just as useful as negative. Passive reading doesn't help us be better authors.

[shemthepenman]

I find it almost incredible to hear that others don't think about the author as they read -- I think about the author almost continuously. In fact, I like to read a bio of the author before I even get into the work. I love to see how a person's life experience and training could be impacting the choices that they make as an author. Topics, recurring themes, word choice...I can see the person reflected in all of these things; that's part of what makes poetry interesting to me. I just read a great article about E. E. Cummings and his background, in fact: http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/the-r...-cumm.html

yes, but, the complete works of EE Cummings could have been spontaneously reproduced by a random word generator. would that honestly detract from the merit of what is written?

---

 i often read poems on here that i really like and the personality/voice is unique and interesting. i don't critique these poems. i enjoy them.

You should tell them what's working for you. Positive feedback can be just as useful as negative. Passive reading doesn't help us be better authors.

true. and i tried to footnote that this isn't strictly true. i just meant if i read a poem that has a unique and interesting voice, i can enjoy that part of it. i didn't really explain this very well.

[rowens]

Outside of any argument, does anyone here believe it's humanly possible, other than very minor typos, for a writer to write even a very short novel without outside revision necessities? Any human? Me, I've been revising many of my long novels for years because I don't want to leave any weaknesses. I'll spend days or months on one paragraph sometimes when I'm going back over something for the third time, often one sentence: Because like I said, I'm pushing myself to self perfection even if that may be impossible. I have faith that it is possible, not just for me. I think some writers have pulled it off. But I think there's a lot of heat against that way of thinking at the moment, despite all the egotists who have so much faith in themselves.

[Leanne]

It's possible. Some writers are also very good editors. You're a good editor, and self-critical -- if you write as a writer, then read as a reader after you've left your writing for a while, you don't need to pay someone else or find a family member who isn't too busy being useless at reading.

[rowens]

A family member? Are you crazed? And I don't have money for an editor. I'd hope that I'd write something good enough that editors would want to call me and act like I'm a nice guy. But that takes a lot of work.

[ellajam]

I find it almost incredible to hear that others don't think about the author as they read -- I think about the author almost continuously. In fact, I like to read a bio of the author before I even get into the work. I love to see how a person's life experience and training could be impacting the choices that they make as an author. Topics, recurring themes, word choice...I can see the person reflected in all of these things; that's part of what makes poetry interesting to me. I just read a great article about E. E. Cummings and his background, in fact: http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/the-r...-cumm.html

I don't have much interest in a poet's actual life. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in them as a person, it's the voice and ability to speak interesting things to me that I enjoy, and that is surely atteched to the person, but the details of their lives? Not necessary for me, I'm not concerned with how they came to be, I just enjoy what they are.