Revisiting/Revising Poetry

i'll go ahead and weigh in here with what is sure to be the minority opinion (and let me state up front that i am a firm believer in disciplined revision of prose).

i hardly ever revise poetry.

I do my revisions while I'm doing the initial work. Word change, swap lines, etc. When I'm done, I'm done. I rarely revisit it - maybe just to read it but not change it.

I know what you mean, William. Although I'm hardly an expert, with poetry - a word here or there after the intial construct or it seems a lost effort. Much more so than prose, a poem comes as a fairly complete thought rather than a process.

With poetry it can go both ways. You can have a flash of inspiration and drive it to its final form in a matter of minutes. You can sometimes find yourself toiling over it for an hour to more, depending on length and how much of a struggle getting what you want turns out to be. Somtimes, you have to walk away and look at it later.

Sometimes, you leave it, look at it later and say, why did I leave it like this? Sometimes you leave it and look at it later and say -- how did I do that? Wow.

Poetry is a much more slippery thing than prose, to my mind. Prose is built on carefully constructed devices and always a movement towards clarity. If only for length alone, prose demands to be clear. Poetry is more like impressionism with words (these days). It stuggles to touch you emotionally and intellectually without drawing hard edges on everything to clearly deliniate.

So, what do I do?

I work at a poem, usually until I'm satisfied. If I'm not, I'll leave it and come back later. I prefer to write at least one complete draft in a single sitting that I'm pleased or at least marginally pleased with. Then look at it again, maybe tighten it up or clean up word doublings or overuse of a particular word. (Most often I cut out a lot of conjunctions and words that bog it down, trying to cut it to it's essence).

Fortunately, if I'm really stumped I can come here and have this wonderful think-tank help me through something particularly difficult (like the Happy Cows poem--which I'm sure few people actually liked, but at least I got useful thoughts on it--and am happy with it now).

But sometimes, you just get lucky and something pops out and wham! Poetic goodness that just flowed out of you. I'm not that lucky most days, but I've had a few.

my process with prose is very much iterative. with poetry, however, every word choice is deliberate, so the work is done in the construction phase.

Have to go with William here. I hardly ever revise poetry either. Prose, yes. Poetry -veeery seldom. Most of the comments I get on my work touch on how I -speak true. (Ehrm, you know, from the heart and stuff.) And I'd rather the critics give me a bad time, than my readers ever feeling that I lie.

Excellent topic.

So far, for me, I agree with Unique, william, and Rivana -- I revise as I go.

There are a number of poems I've drafted, but when I go back to revise them, they're locked doors to me. They don't bear up to revision; the thought's gone, and I start over.

Of course, I've only ever written one-page works. An epic might be different.

Come on, aspier. Weigh in, comrade. I know you want to, and we want to hear about your hundred revisions!

My typical poem begins as a stuttering idiot with a wild eyed vision. I often don't even know what the poem is, only that some "manifestation" is scratching at the door. Words are scribbled willy nilly,along with what I imagine are relevant phrases. Terminology connected with the metaphor etc.

They usually go through about a dozen rewrites. Then four or five minor revisions after. Unless it is one of the incredibly rare and blessed "perfect poems," there is almost something else I can do to "reveal" it. Clarify it. If I read it a year later, I usually see an improvement I can make.

Many of my poems have been marinating in a notebook for three or more months before I seriously tackle them with the intent of finishing them.

The most painful revision (and always the most necessary) is the cold blooded strangulation of the witty line, the spectacular image, the lovely blend of rythm and sound that makes you want to say it again and again. When that line does not advance the poem but is just flashy embroidering it needs to go.

These are usually "proof" phrases I want to include to show people (or maybe show myself) I am clever, funny, or brilliant. Its hard to kill off a "stunt" line. The line that is climbing out of a wrecked car as it's about to explode, falling through a plate glass window, or is about to save the girl. That kind of line.

I always revise. I write poetry. I don't dabble in it. I'm usually committed (or should be) to the piece.

Kevin, do you have any idea how deflating that is to some of us?

I've got to go look up some of your prose now. Sheesh.

You can get familiar with the flaws and expect them to be there. It doesn't mean they should stay. Tolerating weakness in a poem is not the same as overlooking your spouse's snoring.

A repair in one stanza can send shock waves through the surrounding stanzas, making it necessary to alter (or throw out) many lines surrounding the revision. Another temptation to leave bad enough alone. The decision to pull on a loose thread may result in the complete unravelling of the poem. But you can always start over.

Scar it, burn it, cut off all of its hair!

I feel so uncreative compared to you guys. Sometimes I do like what immediately comes out, although I am not opposed to letting it sit for a bit and then tweaking a few words or phrases. Sometimes I think I found the core of an idea but am not satisfied with the execution, so I will rework the idea from a slightly different angle, then evaluate and modify as necessary. Sometimes I have something solid, but that can be improved upon yet to clarify the image or bury deeper meaning within, so I do so.

I do parts of this when writing the initial revision. The rest I do after letting it sit for a bit so I am not so caught up and married to everything. I can evaluate it with a fresh eye and see what is really working and what is not and change it accordingly. Unfrortunately, I am not so great a poet that my ideas come out as instant gold, nor can I give up on an idea without at least attempting it from a few different angles.

Some of my poems I am quite happy with after the process I have taken them through, and others still feel as thought some slight piece is off. But I have faith that I will discover what that missing piece is if I let it rest a bit before attacking it again.

And that is just me. So you instant gold guys are making me a bit jealous now. Hehe.



-Michelle

I'm trying to think of how I consider revising. Never revise after it has been "put away". But while I"m writing I might rearrange line order, change wording,tweak and toy with it several times before I consider it complete. I have posted works here that I have done before revision because I was seeking guidance and changed the poem as I've gotten feedback. simply because I was struggling with the work and I ws attempting to learn from our great poets here.
The ones that turn out to be the better are the ones that didn't go through that process, but landed on the page - fussed with here and there - and then done. Those are the ones with the biggest punch, the ones that read uniformly and resonate. I really need to work harder on not seeking feedback before I'm done with it, and if it isn't working I need to put it aside until the complete image comes to me in a blaze.
A lot of times I want to get a few key words and phrases down, and then play with them on the page. That's why I almost always use pen and paper for poetry writing. It feels more like word manipulation when your hand is doing the writing on a page (at least to me).
I strive to be like KTC, William, etc in that I would be able to write it well the first time, but I haven't achieved that status.

A poem begins for me with labor pains, something needing to be born, but usually, it's needs a lot of cleaning up before I'm happy with it. Every once in a while, it writes itself, but most often, I have to revise, revise, revise.

drachin8 said:

So you instant gold guys are making me a bit jealous now.

Click to expand...

Stew21 said:

I strive to be like KTC, William, etc in that I would be able to write it well the first time, but I haven't achieved that status.

Click to expand...

i certainly don't mean to imply that i write "instant gold" or "write it well the first time"... many of my poems die lonely deaths in notebooks and are never seen by anyone but me.

William Haskins said:

i certainly don't mean to imply that i write "instant gold" or "write it well the first time"... many of my poems die lonely deaths in notebooks and are never seen by anyone but me.

Click to expand...

I do believe you are more disciplined than I am, though, in that you chose words so carefully on first writing them. SOmetimes I have to wrestle with them on the page, not in my mind, in order to see their full potential on the page. I have some of those lonely dead poems in notebooks, too. I suppose I'm just more willing to try to perform CPR on some of them? I guess I do have quite a few zombies running around since I tried to save what should have died. Sort of like a Poet Cemetary of the King variety.

Hmmm... I wouldn't think that "instant gold" poems are in anyway superior to poems that take time.

Writing a poem down, and being satisfied with it is fantastic.
Writing a poem down, and changing it and changing it until it works just right is just as fantastic (in my eyes).

Taking time with a poem can be like a maturing process, you'll notice things you didn't notice the last few times, you'll think of something better and whatnot.

Howl was written in one night, On the Road was written in one session. Does the fact of that make them superior to poems, or books, that took years to master?

interesting, GF. With books and revisions, I automatically think of Tom Robbins who never outlines and only writes one sentence at a time. he perfects a sentence in every way possible whether it takes him 5 minutes, two hours or two days, and then writes the next one. He doesn't speculate on what he wants to say later in the story and try to tip it off, it is one sentence at a time starting with the first. And he has some pretty bewildering plots and characters. THere is no thought to the next part until his sentence is perfect. I think he's a genius, not only because i like his books, but because that style of writing is beyond challenging!

Revision, for me, is more 'clean it up'--never major. Re: your question about cutting and adding--I rarely add to a poem after completion. It is difficult to get the 'feel' back. Cutting, however, is sometimes necessary if a publication requires fewer lines for a poem I just know is perfect for them! I hate to cut, though, because I do love the words, and they are there for a good reason. It has given me sales, however, and I retain the original for future submissions.

I have really enjoyed the discussion, thanks for asking the question!

As usual, I'm going to be out of step here, because I believe the process of writing a poem is a continuous thing which is never really "totally" completed.

I have had a few Poems and Song Lyics come to me, virtually completed, but the key phrase there is "virtually" Even those required a lot of tweaking over an extended period of days to even months to polish up, a process which required both additions and deletions to make the rythems and rhyme schemes work correctly without sacrificing the meaning.

My longer Poems, often develope slowly over periods of years with new sections often necessitating revisions of the first sections in order to fit together properly.

Actually, I evaluate all my poems each time I reread them or others critique them, and have been known to change individual words or phrases and punctuation, and alter how they are presented, in order to enhance and control the flow, and I have even added or deleted whole lines on even my earliest poems if I see a better way to present what I was trying to state.

In addition to that, I often combine sections of abandoned poems to create longer, more ambitious, works, and split up larger poems into 2 or more smaller ones, if I determine they are more effective that way.

Moreover, I think you will find that a perusal of the collected works and various editions of individual volumes of most Major Poets will show similar patterns of constant tinkering and revision.

I don't say everybody should do all these things, and spontaneous creation, if the writer is satisfied with it, can work well wll for some, but the primary purpose of Poetry IS Communication, and, because Poetry is also a "Craft", it requires care and control in it's creation in order to optimize the "Communication" that can be achieved.

Hope this, in addition to what the others have commented, helps you in deciding what you wsh to do for yourself, (as the choice is ultimately yours).

Think about it,


JRH

JR,
i know what your saying with the idea that a poem is (or should be) a constant work in progress. Although, often you can write a poem and, though it may have potential to be better, it stays the same for as long as.

Also, say you write a poem in the year 2000 and look over it in 2005. Your opinion has changed on this matter, and you edit and change it to your current way of thinking. I wouldn't call it an editting, but writing a new poem in response to an old one.

Now, I know I'm not making so much sense here, what I'm trying to say is that editting and changing a poem over a long period of time can result in a different poem instead of an editted version.

ddgryphon said:

Poetry is a much more slippery thing than prose

Click to expand...

I've always thought that a little "mud" in poetry adds to its overall appeal. It's not always a bad thing that the reader thinks "I wonder what he meant by that?" Sometimes poetry can sort of be like viewing the world through a semi-transparent window. You see images and colors, but the final picture might be different for each reader. In this regard, editing poetry (for me) is simply a matter of having it say to me what I intended from the outset. I suppose the same is true of prose and your comment about "building toward clarity" is well said.