02-18-2017, 08:17 AM
Afaik i did not comment on meter.
In regards to your final chapbook idea, nothing has merit in and of itself. Ideally, you should have a rigorous vision for a poem and settle on the poem that nearest attains that.
Why would a reader want to read two versions of a poem? Why should your creative process interest someone who has not yet been convinced of the value of your poetry? A poem is not good just because you wrote it, no matter who you are. If one version of your poem is a more artful work, including the rough versions only weakens the overall quality of the book. One time i read a series of revisions of elizabeth bishop's art of losing (may not be the actual name) which was interesting because the final version is masterful, and her revision process was exhaustive. But the other versions weren't as beautiful in and of themselves. They were just interesting, not worthy of remembering or emulating. (people will disagree on what the best version of a poem is. I just believe u should publish the version you think is best)
Of course, you should trust your own poetic judgment more than mine or anyone else's. Critique is useful insofar as it reminds you what you have neglected, but probably already know.
In regards to your final chapbook idea, nothing has merit in and of itself. Ideally, you should have a rigorous vision for a poem and settle on the poem that nearest attains that.
Why would a reader want to read two versions of a poem? Why should your creative process interest someone who has not yet been convinced of the value of your poetry? A poem is not good just because you wrote it, no matter who you are. If one version of your poem is a more artful work, including the rough versions only weakens the overall quality of the book. One time i read a series of revisions of elizabeth bishop's art of losing (may not be the actual name) which was interesting because the final version is masterful, and her revision process was exhaustive. But the other versions weren't as beautiful in and of themselves. They were just interesting, not worthy of remembering or emulating. (people will disagree on what the best version of a poem is. I just believe u should publish the version you think is best)
Of course, you should trust your own poetic judgment more than mine or anyone else's. Critique is useful insofar as it reminds you what you have neglected, but probably already know.