Hi Colin & Mike...
And others who're reading!
I've found it really interesting reading through all the comments about the 
two drafts of this poem.
I've been delighted by those who've seen the strengths of the new version 
and saddened by those who prefer the more original version.
Why?
Maybe because I see the original version as having "too much of the poet" in 
it (when the poet needn't be there)
and the newer version still had a bit of the poet in the poem (that I felt 
could go!).
"Poems don't need the poet" is overstating it - cos they're often written 
lyrically - but writing without the 1st person pronoun (pronoun = is for 
pronouncing things) works! It gives a lot more. Doesn't it? Let the peacocks 
be heard behind the poem, not the poet!
Bob




>From: Mike Horwood <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: sub/interview Colin
>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:40:01 +0200
>
> > Hello Colin,
>               After I´d given my preference between these two versions I 
>had a look to see what others had said and noticed that most had preferred 
>the rewrite. I´ve read through the two versions again but I have to say 
>that I stay with my initial judgement. I prefer the original for various 
>reasons, amongst which I would include some of the phrases that appear in 
>the original but are cut from the rewrite - `what we ask them is awful´, 
>`we prod them with questions´ for example. I also like the distinction 
>between peacocks and people in the opening of the original since it forces 
>the word and the idea of people into the reader´s mind. I don´t know if it 
>was your intention, but I find myself reading the treatment of the 
>peacock´s as emblematic of treatment of people (from other cultures? 
>immigrants? refugees?) and although the people are mentioned in a negative 
>construction the mere presence of the word brings the idea into the 
>picture. I also liked the wider range of animal references in the original, 
>though I noticed some preferred the rewrite for the opposite reason. The 
>image of the flower for the peacocks´ beaks opening also drew criticism and 
>I may be quite wrong about this but I found it successful. Truly a bird´s 
>beak is nothing like a flower. Neither does this poem exhibit a rigid 
>relationship to the natural world. Interviewers don´t ordinarily force 
>their hands down peacocks´ throats to squeeze their hearts like an orange. 
>What I mean is that in the fantastical terms of the poem I could accept the 
>metamorphosis of the beak into a flower. I pictured it visually in a way 
>which would be quite feasible on film with modern computer technology. 
>There were some phrases which might be better taken from the rewrite. I 
>think I prefer `discard what´s left´ to `expel the pith´ and I´m undecided 
>about the `cold clammy hands // clutch at mine like claws´ or `each bony 
>grip´ but I think if I had to chose I might go for the second, which comes 
>from the rewrite.
>As always, this is only a personal opinion and obviously suspect since so 
>many others thought differently, but I feel it would be a shame if the poem 
>gets so refined in rewriting that it loses its immediacy and visual 
>qualities. I found it a very powerful piece and far more effective than the 
>(overly-)descriptive style of Rowing.
>
>
>
>Best wishes,   Mike
>
>
> > Lähettäjä: Colin dewar <[log in to unmask]>
> > Päiväys: 2004/01/18 su PM 04:40:01 GMT+02:00
> > Vastaanottaja: [log in to unmask]
> > Aihe: sub/interview/thanks
> >
> > Thanks for all feedback.
> >
> > Helen,
> >
> > I agree that the rewrite is less didactic..... and that there is always 
>scope for a third version.
> > As for the explanatory role of the last stanza...interesting point. I'd 
>thought of it as opening the poem up rather than closing it down. Whilst 
>the poem may deal with the unconscious sadism that can energise the most 
>civilised of processes, the last part develops the possibility that what we 
>know of a person mostly is tiny, like a snippet cut from a paper ring. We 
>do not know whether it is a torus or a mobius strip, because we only have a 
>snippet.........but by nature we are inclined to extrapolate (from the 
>small segments of time that we spend with people). We know less than we 
>think, repudiating the teasing-out and boiling down process that the 
>interviewers consciously imagine themselves involved in and which might 
>justify their ruthlessness. Thanks for the crit Helen and keep it coming.
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > You asked which I preferred and have given me an excuse to indulge my 
>predilection for small print (which you'll pass over in the blink of an eye 
>I hope). I prefer the original because it offered a variety of animals and 
>allowed more specific images of unkindness. Generally when you meet people 
>in real life who have ever been unkind to animals (pulling off frogs legs 
>as children etc) then the warning bells sound. It means that their sadistic 
>impulses are well developed and it's only a matter of time before you or 
>s.o. else falls foul of them. This is distinct from aggressive or 
>destructive impulses or callous indifference. I refer to people who enjoy 
>cruelty rather than just getting someone or something out of the way. Of 
>course we all have sadistic impulses, of which we are varyingly aware, but 
>for most of us they are just a small part of our overall mental makeup and 
>we rarely act on them.   Nevertheless I enjoyed getting feedback for the 
>original and putting it towards version 2. I often find that in doing so I 
>see things in a different way.
> >
> >
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
> >
> >

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger