Good one, Bob. yes. I know Kenneth White, he pops in at Edinburgh about once
a year. And I find your comments about Monet's waterlilies helpful, we all
do return to favourite themes or areas again and again. And I like very much
your remark "the audience includes those who keep quiet as well."

We have to be ready for comment/criticism (especially if we ask for it) and
take it on board without letting it sway our minds off our main purposes.
last week I had two instances of readers being quite strongly pro and anti
the same poem (separate poems). Talking to a friend in Edinburgh she said
you need confidence in what you are trying to do with your writing, while at
the same time you may have to be receptive, say, in a reading, to which
poems a particular audience may prefer.

I think I may have a woodpecker sequence brooding away there, and should
leave it awhile to settle down.

Much thanks
SallyE


on 14/6/02 5:05 pm, Bob Cooper at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Hi Sally & Christina (& everyone else who's reading!),
>
> Christina wrote: I can't see why there shouldn't be more than one version of
> a poem.  After all, there's no physical reason why there shouldn't be.
>
> Yeh, I think that's right. Perhaps it's like Monet painting water lillies -
> how many pictures did he paint? (and who's to say which painting, if any,
> shows all he wants to show?). Then there's a Frank O'Hara poem about
> painting where he says he's written 14 poems about oranges.
>
> I find that I have some poems where I read a different version to the one
> that's been published (I sort of feel one version works better in public and
> the printed version works better when the reader is probably on their own).
> I've even changed the form of some poems between their first publication and
> subsequent publication! (Perhaps because I want poems to speak to each other
> as well as speak to readers, so they find a different shape - and sometimes
> slight shifts in the ways words work - so others can hear/see how they share
> things.)
>
> But, as well as seeing that other people offer advice that contradicts - and
> I don't want to dismiss what one side is saying altogether - I often let my
> other poems have their say as well. And they sometimes take ages, a year or
> two or more, before they give me an answer either way. Which is frustrating
> because I'm not always patient enough. But I'm always tinkering with poems
> I've written. Ha! - they often start to grumble when they're at the bottom
> of a drawer I haven't been to the bottom of in years - so I get them out and
> see things that can be done that I couldn't see when I started them! Other
> poems, though, get written without all that much trouble and seem content
> with how they are.
>
> And, Sally, do you know the work of Kenneth White? (A canny Scot with his
> own agenda.) I've found some of the same poems appear in different books,
> sometimes as parts of longer poems, which I first found surprising and now I
> find easier to accept. I guess music, too, gets played by one person on a
> piano (for instance) and then get's played by a big orchestra - and is it
> the same, or is it different? (I sense it's both!)
>
> And, Sally, you ask what audience should you write for? (and you mention a
> few of us...) But it's a really big question! Wow, it's  the question I
> can't answer easily myself either. Perhaps there isn't a clear answer. The
> audience includes those who keep quiet as well. I just sort of have to keep
> reminding myself that my audience, like me, is more complex, and bigger,
> than I know.
> Bob
>
>
>> From: Christina Fletcher <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: woodpecker, & revisions in general.
>> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 06:00:00 EDT
>>
>> Yes, Sally, and a reader's reaction to a poem isn't a constant thing
>> either.
>> I think all readers comments are valid if they're honest.  They're pointers
>> as to how things work or don't work for them (at the time).  I always
>> listen
>> hardest to people whose work has the qualities I'd like in my own.  Doesn't
>> mean that I don't listen to the others, it's just that a shushi chef may
>> not
>> be the right person to tell you how to actually bake a cake, even if s/he
>> can
>> tell you if it tastes well or makes him/her sick.  But in the end, I
>> suspect
>> that you have to listen to the rhythm of your own heart.
>> I can't see why there shouldn't be more than one version of a poem.  After
>> all, there's no physical reason why there shouldn't be.
>> bw
>> christina
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Christina,
>>> If you see my reply to Bob, it applies here too. The original has a
>>> primitive power which some appreciate.  But numerically most readers
>> prefer
>>> a more sophisticated version.
>>>
>>> You and Bob remind me not to subjugate the primitive for convenience
>> sake.
>>> If poem B pleases Arthur, Carol & Sue and poem A pleases Christina and
>> Bob,
>>> which way should I write?  I would like to have the confidence to say,
>> what
>>> pleases me, but I dont always know what pleases me.
>>>
>>> What audience should I write for? Is it desirable to please Christina
>> and
>>> Bob  >and< Arthur, Carol and Sue, all of whom I respect?
>>>
>>> What is the effect of "crit"  on revisions? Is a poem any the worse for
>> an
>>> extra poet or two on the sidelines? Not if you try out the nijuin, it's
>>> better! But do the arguments ever stop?
>>> And the publisher is usually the umpire, that seems right enough.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a poem should never be reworked (just abandonded)? That would be
>>> nonsense I think.
>>>
>>> In the case of Woodpecker, I think there are two poems, the second
>> cribbing
>>> passages from the first.
>>>
>>> This is important analysis for me so thanks for helping, and please
>> don't
>>> hesitate to say if you dont like something. I respect your opinions
>>>
>>> Any more views on revisions
>>> Thanks
>>> bw
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx