place bird here
I once wrote a poem called, "place bird here," which was about, essentially, how to rescue a dead poem. "If all else fails," I say, "insert a bird."
I mean it, but it's not advice I'd give after a poet turned a work in for submission. Or would I?
I recently submitted a poem of mine to an online periodical about insects. I considered the poem finished in the same way a painter might consider a painting finished. Once it goes on the wall, would a potential buyer day say to the artist, "I'd love to buy your painting, but could you, perhaps, paint a little blackbird in this corner? Then I might certainly buy it, though I can't say for sure."
The periodical said that my poem was a maybe. They really liked it, but they didn't like a word I used and thought that another place had a grammatical error. (It didn't.) But I have been writing and submitting and—this is important—having published poems since 1980—25 years, a quarter century (!) of poetness! And no one has ever asked me to change a word. And if someone had, would I?
I thought I might. I sent my poem to a writers' group, where I am a new member. I asked what they thought of the suggestions and of my rewrite. Everyone liked the original better. They said they realized I wanted to get "out there," but that it wasn't worth it. I'd be making a finished poem unfinished, inferior.
With essay writing, with features and book reviews, the editing process is different. You expect to rewrite or change pieces. And it's probably similar with commercial illustration or photography. But a poem is like a painting. You don't change it. It doesn't get "edited" in that way.
Sometimes criticisms have merit. I've been thinking about it a lot, and I'm feeling wishy-washy. Maybe there's no hard and fast rule. You have to be loose, true to yourself. So I'm going to pass on these changes to a poem I think is already done, a poem that has been well-received at several readings. But I might not pass next time.
The poem doesn't have a single bird, but it does have a worm. And sometimes a worm can be pretty groovy. [wink]
* * * * * * *
What are your thoughts on editing poetry?
posted by fuquinay at 8:18 PM
speak!
7 Comments:
I'm not published and haven't submitted my writing for publication. All that said, if and when I do, I will limit the revision process to any moment up until I submit the piece.
11/23/2007 11:28 PM
once you do that you are selling out. don't. i say that as someone who has never had anything published ever.
but i used to live with an artist and (due to being a cheap, well, free model) once appeared twice in the same oil painting, once clothed, once not...
11/24/2007 5:46 PM
I enjoyed reading your reaction to the qarrtsiluni editing process, which is a little unorthodox, I admit. As luck would have it, another author also blogged about our meddlesome ways today!
We're always looking for guest editors, by the way, and I'd be tickled if you were willing to do a two-month stint sometime. (Unfortunately, though, we can't afford to pay anything.)
11/24/2007 10:03 PM
You've made a good argument for your position. Since you've asked about other's thoughts on editing poetry let me respond from the vantage point of both writing and editing for publication.
You speak of the "finished poem," a term I have some time ago abandoned. I say that because I find I am constantly rewriting. I've toyed with rewrites even after publication. I tend to look as my work as, in process or publishable, but hardly ever finished. I know, we sometimes fall so in love with lines we write that we think we'll never change it, and maybe we never will, but I try to lose that mentality as often as I can.
There are similarities between poetry and paintings. There are also similarities with music and other art forms. But a painting usually will stand alone. If we are writing poetry with publication in mind, consider the job of the editor. It is to select and integrate multiple pieces of writing together to make what is in essence a larger artwork out of many individual pieces.
I my editing I have only asked one poet to consider a change. I have great respect for the artistic decisions that are generally made in writing poetry, including but not limited to word choice, punctuation (or lack thereof) and line breaks. On one occasion I have informed a writer I would like to use their piece, but I felt, that center justification did not do the work justice and that unless there was some reason that they felt strongly and wanted to convince me otherwise, I'd like the use the piece as it was, line breaks, punctuation and all, but justify it to the left on the page. The writer agreed and it appeared in the next issue.
Thinking back as a writer, I have only been asked to consider a change twice. One was a slight change in word choice, the other was a piece the editor wanted to change how I chose to capitalize in the poem. In both cases I accepted the judgement of the editors.
There are certainly times when one will want to stick to their original manuscript. I know there are poems with parts that I would not compromised on as the poet. That is always my prerogative as the artist. However I am never offended at the suggestion of change by an editor. For one thing it shows they have given my work more than just a cursory view. I realize it is the poets right to say no just as it is the editors right to not publish. A polite dialogue between poet and editor can be a good learning experience for both parties.
11/25/2007 1:05 AM
Michael and qarrtsiluni, as you see, I came out on neither side and was rather in the middle about it.
In cases where there's a glaring mistake or single incorrect word on an otherwise good poem, sure, why not? But if a poem warrants certain kinds of editing, it's probably best just to reject it and move on.
I don't think of poems as finished as much as I think of them as finished enough to send away. I'm also tinkering with thousand-year-old poems! But I have a few that I honest haven't touched after that first attentive week.
11/25/2007 7:03 AM
I think if an editor is taking a poem on the poem's own terms, and genuinely cares about the poem, then it isn't bad to suggest a change, or to work with the poet on getting to what the editor, as reader, understands is the true message in the poem.
But if it's one word like in this case: that seems so ridiculously arbitrary...sometimes editors need to piss on everything. They shouldn't be editors.
On the poet's side: honesty rules. If you truly think it is done, then you know it is. No need to let someone strong arm you into editing something unnecessarily with promises of publication.
11/25/2007 3:44 PM
I like Michael's answer.
I have gone back to poems I hadn't read in a decade and seen everything from perfection (for what it is) to obvious and necessary changes. I no long have that self-important vibe for posterity preventing me from changing anything to make it better (even if it's published!) We age, we grow, we learn. Posterity can date it's own poems, I don't have to.
But that's me, editing my own words. Working with others can range from insipid quarreling to a genius symphony. I'll consider anything, but it's my work in the end. Good editors and good readers can find meanings you missed, and that's wonderful and worth listening to. Bad editors can miss the point completely and leave you wondering why you bothered.
My two cents. Thanks for asking.
11/30/2007 5:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home