When is good not enough?

[champagne1982]

One shouldn't try to edit out the soul of a work, one should edit to reveal the soul of the work and that might require leaving the faults and imperfections in place.

Well said. This is why self-edits are important, but OTH a better case is heard for finding and using a poetry editor. Sometimes, the perfectionist in a writer can't allow those faults to remain, even to the detriment of the piece.

 

[Angeline]

Well said. This is why self-edits are important, but OTH a better case is heard for finding and using a poetry editor. Sometimes, the perfectionist in a writer can't allow those faults to remain, even to the detriment of the piece.

It's really important to find somebody who's in tune with the way you write or they won't get it and their suggestions won't work. That's why I've always thought darkmaas is my best editor; he just seems to understand what I want to say better than anyone else. Others may have preferences they project onto what I write, but it's not the same thing. There's a fine line between enhancing or improving what one wants to say and changing it to meet someone else's preferences.

 

[lorencino]

Well said. This is why self-edits are important, but OTH a better case is heard for finding and using a poetry editor. Sometimes, the perfectionist in a writer can't allow those faults to remain, even to the detriment of the piece.

Excuse my long teeth, but I've been noticing this odd word, "OTH" lately and at first assumed it was a typo or perhaps somebody's username. Am I correct in assuming it means "on the other hand?"

 

[champagne1982]

Excuse my long teeth, but I've been noticing this odd word, "OTH" lately and at first assumed it was a typo or perhaps somebody's username. Am I correct in assuming it means "on the other hand?"

oops.. I typoed an acronym . How embarrassing . Not really ... but yes, it should be OTOH and that is what it means.

 

[twelveoone]

I was just reading some poems and there is one poet who writes good poetry but after reading her poems, she made me feel she (I assume) was writing well within herself and she was relying on style. That feeling ruined her poetry for me. I would have much prefered to have sensed she was pushing her boundaries even if she failed, rather than turning out crowd pleasers. Her work wasn't perfect, it could have been tighter but who am I to criticize someone for seemingly not interested in spending too much time editing.

Am I being too harsh or is it good enough for someone with a talent to rely on a style rather than stretching themself? I get the same feeling about several well known published poets which ruins their work for me so I shouldn't be critical of an amateur I know. But I would just thought I ask for other people's thoughts.

What you describe is Death, but you have to be careful and ask yourself are they stretching themselves within a style, perfecting a technique. Are they just having fun, or playing to a crowd?

Having fun with something you can carry it too far, as Auden did in The Age of Anxiety - which really goes on way too long, we get the point and he is reaching towards the end.

Playing to a crowd is sure death, the crowd moves on, and you haven't grown.
I like to read about poets getting sick about their work, Dylan Thomas, Yeats neither coasted on auto-pilot. At least half of your work should be chancy, and you should be able to see growth in the things that aren't.

As far as your criticism, in a way, you bought it (investing time/money) , you are free to do with it as you like, you are the ultimate end as consumer/critic.

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

Never mind.

 

[twelveoone]

Never mind.

I believe that is no mind
as in ommmmmmmmmmmmm