Editing of poems

William Haskins said:

yeppers.

to go back to the OP and address the question directly. yes, there are people who will take your money and tell you how your poem could be better. far preferable, if you don't completely trust your work is "ready" for whatever secondary purpose you have in mind, is to buddy up to a poet who knows their shit and ask for some honest advice.

Click to expand...

Far preferable indeed.

I believe Trish has a point about bleeding colors. Any writer, regardless genre, has to be leery of taking on another writer's style.

That said, I love the crit forum for the differing viewpoints given on a poem. The obvious things of misspelled words and such being brought to the poet's notice are small in comparison to different ways to think about how to approach an area in a poem that is causing the poet concern. It is always the poet's decision whether to take the advice or discard it--or use it as a spring board to dive into deeper waters. Having other poets crit my poems hasn't changed my voice, only honed it, because of learning when to take advice and when to discard it. Whether I agree with the advice or not, it is always invaluable to me because it requires me to think. And thinking is never a bad thing, in my experience.


I am also interested in the Church of Poetry. It would probably pay better than poetry does now, for one thing.

This thread is indeed a silk purse, Rob. Well caught.

Stew21 said:

And in light of Lisa's comment, I think what an editor does (and doesn't) has everything to do with poetry maintaining its integrity:

Click to expand...

Well said. In a way, it was well-meaning editors who did those things that needed undoing. I'm fascinated by the notion of forensic editing; what a world words are.

It wasn't until I got to AW that I saw the word "redact" used. Previously, I'd only seen it on posters I bought as a student on a trip to the USSR. I remember seeing the word "redactor" on the small print (I made it out phonetically from the Cyrillic), and I'd assumed from the context that it meant "editor". And maybe it does, in Russian. But the parallel, when I realised it, amused me.

Trust Allah, but tie your camel, y'know?

Redact is a great word. Remediate. Vetting is meant for cattle but the US government loves it some vetting.

Still on topic, I wonder if its because we (poets) are much more intimate with the poetry than we would be with, say, a long form novel. Novelists have little trepidation about being edited because that's an inherent part of the workflow and part of how a novel reaches a bookstore (self-publishing somewhat excluded here). I buy that intimacy, sure, but I have posted a few things here and the things people see that I don't have opened up my eyes in many ways -- structure, form, understanding.

I suppose my point still is salient: the right editor can help conjure more magic in your work.

I am trying to think of an instance where my words were changed or edited post acquisition pre-publication. I don't think it has ever happened. But I could very well be misremembering.

I do my first edit by READING OUT LOUD. That is the biggest staple in the poet's toolbox. The only one you should have outside of the musicality of words, knowledge of form and non-form and respect for both the sacred and the absurd. And you must respect also the divinity of the benign.

READ OUT LOUD. Poetry is the music and the non-music of words. You line them up for a different kind of battle as a poet than as you do as a prose writer. The poet should be more concerned with synchronicity of sound than with the meaning and accuracy of the message. Because message is obviously important, they should indeed get it right...don't get me wrong. Clarity of meaning is just as important in poetry as in prose. But I think it's also more open to the interpretation of the reader. The reader comes to a poem with a notion that he is about to jump. The poet's job is to give him something to relate to in his fall. But relate to in melody as well as in tone and message.

I think I might be high. Damn office supplies!

After you read your poem aloud ad nauseum, read it aloud again. And then gather together with your poetic brethren and break bread...using the words of your poems for the soup and the imperfection of your knowledge and wisdom as the bread. Sop up those words. Weigh them each, and measure their girth. Toss them back and forth. Do the hokey pokey with them.

Then...take turns reading the poem aloud to each other. Hear it from the lips of another. Take note of the sharp edges and file them down.

When you are finished doing these things, you will have crystal vision. Der. And you will also have something ready to submit for publication consideration.

Don't forget to kiss your poems. They too have feelings.

KTC said:

And then gather together with your poetic brethren and break bread...using the words of your poems for the soup and the imperfection of your knowledge and wisdom as the bread. Sop up those words. Weigh them each, and measure their girth. Toss them back and forth. Do the hokey pokey with them.

Click to expand...

It's cute that you think this introverted extrovert has poetic brethren... IRL.

But more to your point, yes. I read my poetry aloud. To myself. And the cat.

Sarita said:

It's cute that you think this introverted extrovert has poetic brethren... IRL.

But more to your point, yes. I read my poetry aloud. To myself. And the cat.

Click to expand...

The Cat always knows.

I always read them aloud.

Stew21 said:

I always read them aloud.

Click to expand...

I know you do, puddin'.

Ack! I hate the sound of my voice so much. I just listen to for the bad. I would hate to hear myself read them on a recorded device. This would involve alcohol and possible suicide. No.

It's not so bad. You get used to it. I re-record several times before I'm happy with them usually.

https://soundcloud.com/trish-stewart-4/mississippi-churning

https://soundcloud.com/trish-stewart-4/interview-with-a-dead-poet-a


Don't be afraid.

KTC said:

Ack! I hate the sound of my voice so much. I just listen to for the bad. I would hate to hear myself read them on a recorded device. This would involve alcohol and possible suicide. No.

Click to expand...

Excellent Post #104 and I totally agree along with practicing the methods of your recommendations!!! Also dislike my vocal recordings, though I do have one up at soundcloud (I keep meaning to re-record it - had a cold when I did it 1st time).

!

I don't mind hearing my recorded voice, though it sounds a bit higher-pitched and somehow smaller than it sounds in my head while I'm speaking.

all's well that ends well.

You mean that's it? We're done?

William Haskins said:

all's well that ends well.

Click to expand...

CassandraW said:

You mean that's it? We're done?

Click to expand...

There's no way we're taking Haskins' word for it.

Wonderful article about poets and editors. Now, I'm wondering whose Pound I can be. Or who can be the Wordsworth to my Coleridge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...y-editing-from-TS-Eliot-to-John-Burnside.html

Love this quote: "I say I edit Longley, but I don’t really,” says Robertson, “I just pat him on the back.”"

Wordsworth and Coleridge were wretched, dismal, terrible editors; they both re-wrote. That's not editing.

And in the case of the two poets and their mutual works, Wordsworth was a jealous so-and-so and plagiarized his sister; Coleridge plagiarized to a degree that scholars are really only coming to terms with in the last ten or fifteen years.

Editing poetry or prose is about enhancing the author's voice, not drowning it, and comes with the author's STET as an operating assumption.

Ezra is in for a penny, in for a pound. I approve of this message.

Sarita said:

... Now, I'm wondering whose Pound I can be. ...

Click to expand...

You can be my Yoko Ono!

AW Admin said:

Wordsworth and Coleridge were wretched, dismal, terrible editors; they both re-wrote. That's not editing.

And in the case of the two poets and their mutual works, Wordsworth was a jealous so-and-so and plagiarized his sister; Coleridge plagiarized to a degree that scholars are really only coming to terms with in the last ten or fifteen years.

Editing poetry or prose is about enhancing the author's voice, not drowning it, and comes with the author's STET as an operating assumption.

Click to expand...

i absolutely love it when you get fire in the belly like this.

Why shouldn't I continue to use my head's inside, to read my poetry? I like it in there! So does my poetry! I don't have a Western drawl in my mind. It's reads beautifully in there!

Steppe said:

So the question arises, is the edited poem still the original poets? Shouldn't the one editing be considered a co-poet? Pointing out obvious errors of grammar (yuk?) or spelling is one thing, offering new ways to say a thing is another.

When does the poem cease to be the original poets?

Click to expand...

I think there may be a difference between directly editing someone's poem, and reading it over/offering advice on a poem.
Kylabelle provided the example of Pound and Eliot. By pointing out that a line was "too penty", Ezra Pound was not directly changing the poem, but showing Eliot where a weakness was lying.

In this way, I say most definitely poetry needs to be revised/edited. A lot of poetry is trying to convey a moment of sensation in the most accurate or potent way possible. Because of this, and because the boundaries of literary technique is constantly being pushed, it's really important to make sure the heart of the piece isn't getting lost or confused by a reader who doesn't know what the writer is thinking.

Having someone read over your poetry, even if they never edit, and even if you never take their advice, it is always very helpful.

Edited without permission? Spelling, yes. Layout, syntax, word choice, no.
Suggested changes, yes. On many occasions, but ultimately always my choice to commit to those.

I'm in agreement with william in an earlier post. Only the poet should make the final edits, suggestions and critique along the way should always be accounted for and viewed such that they provide insight, not carbon copy material.