Revision Process

[Lizzie]

Hi all! I've noticed that some people seem to focus on one piece fairly intensively and post revisions quickly (even extensive ones) and others take a while to post revisions or work on a few at a time. I usually have a few in the works at any given time and I try to leave at least a week in between significant revisions so that I can let thoughts gel and come back with fresh eyes.

But, I was wondering if waiting to make revisions discourages people from commenting if they think that you're ignoring their opinions or that perhaps you're not really serious about changing your work. Thoughts on a good revision timeline that works with the trends of the group? Are there any expectations about revising within a certain period of time?

[QDeathstar]

I tend to notice that revisions get less replies that the op.... I guess people critique it once and move on.

[ellajam]

I've gotten plenty of response whichever way I work. I find when I'm of a mood to focus and revise quickly members follow the edits and comment on changes, it can be fun and exciting to work like that, IME members will stay for the ride. But I've also found that even when I take more time, weeks, months, sometimes coming back after a year to rework it, members will return with me and crit the changes.

I think that as long as I respond to the crit and consider it, hopefully at some time using it, the pen is always eager to give. It's interesting to give crit and see it being used but we know each poem takes its own time. I myself am learning to go slower but when I'm on a roll I tend to swing the axe a bit recklessly, knowing I can always go back, I've posted quite a few train wrecks. It all depends on what I find fun, but my poem, my thread, I can do what I like.

So I guess my view is that there are no rules or etiquette except to respect and consider the crit, then do what you think is best for the poem at any pace that suits you.

[Todd]

Hi all! I've noticed that some people seem to focus on one piece fairly intensively and post revisions quickly (even extensive ones) and others take a while to post revisions or work on a few at a time. I usually have a few in the works at any given time and I try to leave at least a week in between significant revisions so that I can let thoughts gel and come back with fresh eyes.

But, I was wondering if waiting to make revisions discourages people from commenting if they think that you're ignoring their opinions or that perhaps you're not really serious about changing your work. Thoughts on a good revision timeline that works with the trends of the group? Are there any expectations about revising within a certain period of time?

There are only a few expectations at all regarding revisions-we expect people to acknowledge when a critique has been given (which is only polite), and there is the assumption that you at least are considering revising the work if it is in one of the critique forums.

Outside of that, you are free to sit on the critiques and revise much later or quickly if you see something you'd like to change. There is a danger in quick revisions in that you can move too quickly, not trust your original idea, and lose the spark of the piece. That's more of confidence and experience writing sort of thing.

When revision occurs doesn't affect my desire to comment. I do personally like seeing the progression of some poems and enjoy watching them develop. The writer though is in control of the pace of these things.

[Lizzie]

I tend to notice that revisions get less replies that the op.... I guess people critique it once and move on.

Yes!! I've noticed this too. It's hard to know what to make of that when it's your work. Presumably there's just less to criticize because it's better, but it would be nice if people at least said, 'hey this is better' so that you know that you didn't completely butcher it in the process. Or, the opposite, if that's the case! The general you, not you you.

---

 I've posted quite a few train wrecks.

Somehow I find that difficult to believe

---

Outside of that, you are free to sit on the critiques and revise much later or quickly if you see something you'd like to change. There is a danger in quick revisions in that you can move too quickly, not trust your original idea, and lose the spark of the piece. That's more of confidence and experience writing sort of thing.

Yes, that's something I struggle with and it's one of the reasons I like to take my time. I do feel like I lose people in the process, though. I wonder if maybe people keep coming back to the mod's posts because they're usually quite good. Sometimes I think that when newer people comment, they don't come back because they've left the forum. Because we're expected to crit in the forum that we post in, I wonder if posting in novice or mild might result in fewer people returning -- I think that those who post in serious are regulars.

[Leanne]

If there's a good back and forth I'll always try to return to it. Sometimes I don't feel comfortable making further comment if the only changes the OP has made are those that I suggested, for fear that people think I'm patting myself on the back. That's happened to me enough, even here, that I don't feel like dealing with it anymore.

It's different if I know that the person posting welcomes the input. I guess it's just a matter of getting to know people.

[milo]

I don't think there is any correct way to handle revision or any universal way to apply it. If someone notes something, say a cliche, in something I've written, I am going to attempt to revise that as soon as possible. Obviously, I don't want any cliches hanging about in my poem and it is usually a pretty easy fix. Same thing with basic punctuation, line breaks maybe some overmodification, etc. There are usually pretty simple fixes to these types of problems. Someone recently said that one of my poems read like it came from a Chinese poem factory. Issues like this can be more difficult to address and will take time, separation, some thought, etc.

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.

[shemthepenman]

theoretically, there is no reason one couldn't make every edit suggested as soon as possible. it isn't as if by making the revision and posting it one is necessarily committed to it. if someone says "it's all wrong. you should change x, y, and z", then do it, post it, and see how that works, ask "what d'you think?". there need be no genuine agreement with the criticism in order to make the edits. it isn't like a painting whereby suggested revisions are a mission to implement and an even bigger mission to correct. or, let's say, it isn't like the poem is already printed, published, and being sold in Waterstones. this is a dedicated website that affords one a platform to make infinite edits and re-edits, with none of them being cut in stone.

practically, of course, it is rarely that straightforward. a spelling mistake, a specific word suggestion, punctuation problems, basic structural issues, etc. are all pretty easy fixes. but the more vague or general suggestions would take time and consideration. saying "i think the tone shift halfway through the poem, from morbid to jolly, doesn't quite work" could take a lot of thought to correct, and it may not be worth the effort of going through a long re-writing process if one didn't agree with the criticism in the first place. but, even if one does agree, it should be expected that the edit will take time and possibly abandoned altogether.
also, i think sometimes newer poets may not feel entirely confident that they will apply the changes correctly. and this is not to be sniffed at, even for experienced poets, because it adds a very real dimension of immediate and concrete expectation. before the criticism everything is abstract. now the direct question is being asked, "can you make this work without the jarring tone shift from morbid to jolly?" a lot of new poets might reply, "i shouldn't even like to attempt it as an experiment, lest i fail."

i suppose all of this is a roundabout way of saying i think the swiftness of the edit [understanding, of course, there is no obligation to make any edit, whatsoever] will be relative to the critique. and as such there can be no hard and fast rules for time scales, etc. my personal rule is if the suggestions are specific i can edit there and then. the more vague suggestions, i would have to weigh up the benefits against the time and effort it would tke to make the edits. meaning, is it worth making an edit that will be time consuming if it is only intended as an experiment, an 'it can't hurt' kind of thing, but not being entirely sold on the criticism itself.

i'm not sure if that answers your question. i can't even remember what the question was, now. but i've written all this waffle and i'll be damned if i'm not going to post it.

oh also, this reminds me of an example of how not to take criticism and suggestions: ages ago i remember someone posted an emo 'i hate myself and want to die' type poem in serious. along with the poem being awful sentimental trite the author had omitted the spaces between punctuation mark and word, something like this: i want to cut myself.i'm sad.mummy doesn't love me...nor's dad. when it was pointed out that it was a generally accepted standard that spaces be used for readability purposes, he accused everyone of being The Man, and trying to stifle his self-expression and natural genius with societal norms, and that he had transcended and reached a higher vibration of existence that us mere mortals and our so-called 'standards of spaces between punctuation marks' could never understand [i have to say, as rebellious planes of existence go, the one where rules about spaces between punctuation and word are flouted must be a zone of very low expectation]. anyway, we've all seen this before, someone posting in a critical forum and then refusing to take criticism. as far as i remember, he didn't edit it. the point is, what is lost by simply trying it on for size? especially with such a specific suggestion. i suppose some people are just cunts.

[rowens]

Me, I do all the revising before I post something. When people make good points about things, or later I see things differently, I say Well this is an imperfect poem and I want to do better next time. Well, sometimes I say that. But me, personally, I like having flawed poems. Sometimes I want to write pretty things that most everyone agrees are good. But I keep my flawed poems around and read them out loud to people. I like them. Sometimes I like them better than the ones other people tell me are actually good. To me that just seems natural.

[QDeathstar]

@lizzie I tend to think they are just tired of beating a dead horse.

[Lizzie]

If there's a good back and forth I'll always try to return to it. Sometimes I don't feel comfortable making further comment if the only changes the OP has made are those that I suggested, for fear that people think I'm patting myself on the back.

I can see that: good job changing that period like I told you to!

---

theoretically, there is no reason one couldn't make every edit suggested as soon as possible. it isn't as if by making the revision and posting it one is necessarily committed to it. if someone says "it's all wrong. you should change x, y, and z", then do it, post it, and see how that works, ask "what d'you think?". there need be no genuine agreement with the criticism in order to make the edits. it isn't like a painting whereby suggested revisions are a mission to implement and an even bigger mission to correct. or, let's say, it isn't like the poem is already printed, published, and being sold in Waterstones. this is a dedicated website that affords one a platform to make infinite edits and re-edits, with none of them being cut in stone.

I'd feel like my poem was not my own if I did this. I've certainly made changes I didn't like in order to make a poem better, but I have to agree that it will in some way better the outcome before I launch into a change. Sometimes I have a hard time re-conceptualizing in order to make edits and I can't do them eternally.

---

Me, I do all the revising before I post something. When people make good points about things, or later I see things differently, I say Well this is an imperfect poem and I want to do better next time. Well, sometimes I say that. But me, personally, I like having flawed poems. Sometimes I want to write pretty things that most everyone agrees are good. But I keep my flawed poems around and read them out loud to people. I like them. Sometimes I like them better than the ones other people tell me are actually good. To me that just seems natural.

Funny, although I do actually enjoy some of my flaws; I hold them in tension with my desire to also be a better poet. It's a both/and situation.

---

@lizzie I tend to think they are just tired of beating a dead horse.

I think I know what you mean. The poem is not getting better despite so much effort? You don't want to overburden the poet? Perhaps poems can be revised to death?

[ellajam]

Certainly they can be revised to death, I could point you to some of mine but I fear I'd scare you to edit death. Ah, the bloody axe.

But you can always go back and start again, using all that great crit to a better end.

Hey, I just thought of the first piece I posted here, after trying to implement all the great advice I went back to the original with just a few tweaks, but those tweaks did improve the poem. Writing poems can be torturous, if it's not fun too what's the point?

[shemthepenman]

I'd feel like my poem was not my own if I did this. I've certainly made changes I didn't like in order to make a poem better, but I have to agree that it will in some way better the outcome before I launch into a change. Sometimes I have a hard time re-conceptualizing in order to make edits and I can't do them eternally.

---

ha, that's funny, i forgot about the old ego. yeah, that can get in the way, too, i suppose. i would only really finalise a poem [whatever that means in poetry world--maybe it means printing it, putting it in a draw, and forgetting about it] with suggested changes if i genuinely thought those changes made the poem better than i did with the original. i rarely, if ever, have any sentimental connection to what i write.

i don't quite understand what you mean about making changes you don't like in order to make a better poem. it's a bit like cooking a meal and someone saying, "add this, it'll make it taste better". either it makes it taste better and, therefore, you like it more, or it doesn't and you don't. adding something that makes something better but not liking it is like admitting one has bad taste or poor judgement. unless you meant you didn't initially like the suggestions but made them anyway and found the poem was improved.

anyway, of course, i'm not suggesting endless edits; but, if one has, say, 3 or 4 strong critiques that give very clear and practical suggestions for possible revisions, then i can't see what would prevent one from implementing all of the changes suggested [time permitting]. and i am talking specifically about here, on this website. i don't even see how the sentimental or egotistical connection to the poem should get in the way of what is a [hypothetically] infinitely changeable product. and this applies in Rowen's case, as well. to me, liking the faults in your poem and making edits on a website forum are not mutually exclusive concepts, as far as i'm concerned. you can do both. you can write a poem with the spelling all wrong, like it, post it, get told the spelling is all wrong, like the fact the spelling is all wrong but post an edit with the spelling corrected, anyway. you've lost nothing. you may have even gained something. a slightly less shit poem.

[rowens]

I think artists should be egotistical. I think the personality of the poet is an important part of the poem, though you can't always have that information. When I say flaws I mean imperfections and not errors. The poet's worldview or understanding of poetry as this universal art form may be flawed or weak, but the poem can still stand on its own, just as what it is. And knowing the poet's personality can affect that too.

[ellajam]

I think artists should be egotistical. I think the personality of the poet is an important part of the poem, though you can't always have that information. When I say flaws I mean imperfections and not errors. The poet's worldview or understanding of poetry as this universal art form may be flawed or weak, but the poem can still stand on its own, just as what it is. And knowing the poet's personality can affect that too.

That's true, lately I read everything with a critic's eye and I love when a poet's voice transcends that and makes me shut up and enjoy it.

[rowens]

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.

[shemthepenman]

I think artists should be egotistical. I think the personality of the poet is an important part of the poem, though you can't always have that information. When I say flaws I mean imperfections and not errors. The poet's worldview or understanding of poetry as this universal art form may be flawed or weak, but the poem can still stand on its own, just as what it is. And knowing the poet's personality can affect that too.

maybe, i just think it's a very conservative attitude.

anyway, yes the personality of the poet is important. but it is only really relevant if the poems he writes are any good.

[rowens]

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.

[Lizzie]

unless you meant you didn't initially like the suggestions but made them anyway and found the poem was improved.

Yes, that's what I meant.

[QDeathstar]

I think I know what you mean. The poem is not getting better despite so much effort? You don't want to overburden the poet? Perhaps poems can be revised to death?

uh, er, yes.