As a poet, I have best loved the workshops in which we (the group and/or
leader) has gone hard at the language, looking for what 'works' or does not,
where the rhythm is off, where a word is out of focus, etc., etc. Where
everyone gets challenged, goes through the pain of giving up what some may
describe as a 'narcissistic attachment' to one's stuff. Getting the whole
thing off the ground, so to speak.

As a poet I have appreciated editors (Mark Weiss among them) who have
provided a similar workshop kind of ear and the process that has led to much
better work. (Admittedly there is part of me which is sloppy, or has run
scared in coming up with 'the punch' that delivers the final count - and I
need the editor as doctor, surgeon, and psychic masseuse).

As a publisher/editor in many previous manifestations, I have seen poets of
all kinds. Some that come with work that is 'cabinet finish' that I would
not deign touch in a month of Sundays! Yet, even in those cases, in terms
of putting a book together there remains my contribution to a book or mag as
to how the poems may best sequence (suggestion of different juxtapositions
of poems, etc.); then there are issues of determining typography and design
(where - as long as their eyes were not made of tin - I would often keep the
author in the loop).
Ultimately, as I have argued elsewhere, "originality" is finally a fiction.
An author's work is always mediated (or abused) by all elements in the
process (from original input to 'final' appearance), and, with the good
poem, it will be mediated again and again from generation to generation. At
best it's great dance; at worst, its anthological unreadable typographic
dark sludge (The world is full of ugly, muse killer, big publisher poetry,
anthologies, especially, paperbacks).

Which bring up my earlier question of "medium" and its relationship to
attention span, durability and mortality. Is the Internet such a fugitive
medium that are the works archived "here" in a much more dangerous position
than those preserved in books? I am of the opinion that we very much need
both formats - digital and printed. The digital, as several have suggested,
offers a wonder way of proliferating work around the globe, and,
aesthetically, it can be done beautifully, as well as provide much more
opportunity for call and response. Printed formats, for me, locate the work
more concretely (I like to hold the stuff!), as well as protect important
work from the fugitive character of digital platforms and technologies that
change quicker than most of us can turn a syllable (well, maybe not that
fast!)

It's Saturday evening and time to hit the skies (great spring clouds!) and a
party to go to underneath.

Stephen V
Blog: http://stephenvincent.durationpress.com






> Mark wrote:
>
>>> When I ask a translator to do work for me I always make clear that I'll be
> editing actively. I don't know how anybody manages to produce decent
> translations consistently without editing, but translations are almost never
> edited, and most translations in print are pretty ghastly as a result.<<
>
> Yes! Yes! As someone who just published a book of translations with a
> publisher that provided not editorial interaction whatsoever, and who is
> now, of course, finding all kinds of places in the book where it would have
> been nice to have an editor's eyes and ears also looking at the text and
> giving me informed input, I just wanted to chime in and underline this
> statement of Mark's, especially the second sentence.
>
> Rich Newman