Oh dear, if someone questions my courtesy, I must immediately apologize. I do. I have probably been too hasty in my answer, and, of course, inaccurate. Therese Coe, I beg you to forgive whatever I have said that may have offended you. I had no reason for that.
Now what did I say? That sometimes, argument should be let aside when one of the arguers guessed, or feared, that it might me pointless or unpleasant. I still say it. I am sorry if that was not clear. My technique of expression is not quite up to yours.
"But wouldn't it be simpler to divulge, in the above case, the elusive point, especially since no one can possibly second-guess everything that's on a writer's mind when she or he writes? " Yes it would. And whenever a critic asks me "what did you mean?" I am very happy to simply explain what I did mean, and very ready to admit that I could have conveyed my meaning in different words. But when a critic does not ask any question, I am not volunteering an answer.
Now some critics think their job is to try to explain, to understand, or to question, what made the poet write something they do not like, they do not understand, or think absolute s..t. I am quite prepared to dialogue with that sort of critic, on board or off board. I think they ARE critics.
But when (we are of course talking about a purely hypothetical case) the critique is limited to: L1 wrong, L2 better, without any interrogation, then I feel justified in putting everything on the shelf for future revision, and give no explanation to someone who does not ask for it. Without any bad feelings I hope, on either side.
You disagree on the point that a poet is never satisfied with h. work? well, that's your opinion. It is not mine. I have a friend who is still editing poems he wrote forty years ago, and that I, as part of his audience, have accepted as perfect thirty years ago.
I think, and that is my opinion only, which you are welcome to share - or not - that a poem is NOT primarily meant for an audience. One of the great philosophers of the last Century (I mean the XXth) said "books are for writing only".
I don't know when a poem is finished. I don't think any poet does. This is why some hasten to publish, or to post, before they feel the urge to change something.
I do not know if I have been discourteous to you, Therese, or to anyone on this board. If I have, I apologize.
But, once again, a poet who says that h. poem is finished is no poet. And this should not be read as an offence to anyone.
Thanks for editing all my text. It was not, perhaps, necessary: I am not THAT important, and my answer came just a few lines above yours. I thank you for boosting my ego.
Best regards.
------------------
'arry
- down to earth -
|