An interesting piece. Love the handwritten notes! Whenever I revise an older poem of mine, I usually make it shorter by removing unnecessary fluff or simply change the title. Otherwise, I tend to leave it be because the original form is how I intended it at the time. But I'm an unpublished amateur, so I just write what I feel then move on to the next one.
I treat the revision process like pushing a snowball uphill. Bits will fall off, new bits will collect on the surface and work into the depths, and then at some point you reach top of the hill and let it roll, “finished”. Of course it’s never actually finished, just released.
The two extremes of the process don’t work for me. I’ve never written anything fully-formed on the first go. (It’s close, but if I come back a few days later I always find I can say it more gracefully, effectively, a truer voice.) And it would be quite maddening to revise forever.
See, for me, I often write fully formed poems! In fact, the one that won third-place recently was written just like that. While it’s not always in one sitting (I came back to the lines I had a day later), I don’t cross anything out.
Then (as I say here) I sometimes will cross out, or in the case of ‘We Blue Stars’, begin from scratch.
Loved this article. I thought your experiences with that publisher who wanted you to rewrite it 3x and THEN they would accept it, was really presumptuous, arrogant and all the other unpleasant qualities of poetry publications. Hence my bypassing the gatekeepers and publishing straight to Substack.
Re: revisioning. That's kind of what it is, right: re-visioning, creating a new vision/version of the poem. Mind you, just because I don't submit to publications doesn't mean I spout perfect poetry out the gate or don't revise; I'm always revising. Why, just before I pulled the trigger on my latest poem "Sparrows", I revised the line breaks and even changed a line which brought it into sharper focus.
I thought your second version of After Cinderella was more powerful, and I think it brought out more nuances that maybe the first version didn't capture.
Conversely, we could keep revising a poem till the cows come home; but at some point, you've just got to pull the trigger and publish. I've figured it's never going to be perfect, only as close an approximation of the thoughts/feelings/images we're trying to convey in a given moment.
It honestly depends with me. A lot of poems I leave alone, and they go out to journals—some even become my most popular pieces. But this one (We Blue Stars) is a weird one. I don’t often rewrite to this level!
An interesting piece. Love the handwritten notes! Whenever I revise an older poem of mine, I usually make it shorter by removing unnecessary fluff or simply change the title. Otherwise, I tend to leave it be because the original form is how I intended it at the time. But I'm an unpublished amateur, so I just write what I feel then move on to the next one.
I agree with your stance! I operate on instinct, so not all of my poems get this treatment! I feel the handwritten notes add a je ne sais quoi!
I treat the revision process like pushing a snowball uphill. Bits will fall off, new bits will collect on the surface and work into the depths, and then at some point you reach top of the hill and let it roll, “finished”. Of course it’s never actually finished, just released.
The two extremes of the process don’t work for me. I’ve never written anything fully-formed on the first go. (It’s close, but if I come back a few days later I always find I can say it more gracefully, effectively, a truer voice.) And it would be quite maddening to revise forever.
See, for me, I often write fully formed poems! In fact, the one that won third-place recently was written just like that. While it’s not always in one sitting (I came back to the lines I had a day later), I don’t cross anything out.
Then (as I say here) I sometimes will cross out, or in the case of ‘We Blue Stars’, begin from scratch.
A pleasure to enter your creative garden, to have this feeling to be around the table with you, listening, reading your notes, talking about writing.
Welcome!
Loved this article. I thought your experiences with that publisher who wanted you to rewrite it 3x and THEN they would accept it, was really presumptuous, arrogant and all the other unpleasant qualities of poetry publications. Hence my bypassing the gatekeepers and publishing straight to Substack.
Re: revisioning. That's kind of what it is, right: re-visioning, creating a new vision/version of the poem. Mind you, just because I don't submit to publications doesn't mean I spout perfect poetry out the gate or don't revise; I'm always revising. Why, just before I pulled the trigger on my latest poem "Sparrows", I revised the line breaks and even changed a line which brought it into sharper focus.
I thought your second version of After Cinderella was more powerful, and I think it brought out more nuances that maybe the first version didn't capture.
Conversely, we could keep revising a poem till the cows come home; but at some point, you've just got to pull the trigger and publish. I've figured it's never going to be perfect, only as close an approximation of the thoughts/feelings/images we're trying to convey in a given moment.
Keep up the good work - you're awesome!
It honestly depends with me. A lot of poems I leave alone, and they go out to journals—some even become my most popular pieces. But this one (We Blue Stars) is a weird one. I don’t often rewrite to this level!