Loved it! Especially the 2 paragraphs on the "poets" (Leonardo Bellows etc. etc.) Gorgeous satire, great fun! :). And since the message of the second half appears to be "Those who can, write; those who can't, edit" -- I assume it was actually written by a writer not an editor? -- OK, OK, I admit, I Googled him to make sure... ;).
I write the following in the same vein as this poetry editor, in other words with my tongue stuck firmly in my cheek: Keats was obviously ill-informed or dumb because he had “stout Cortez silent upon a peak in Darien” when everybody knows it was Núñez de Balboa up there looking at what he called the Southern Sea, and which we know as the Pacific Ocean. I actually wrote a little poem called “Keats Tweets” debunking his assertion.😊
Hilarious! I have edited some poetry, fiction, and nonfiction. Primarily, I write poetry, and have done so for nearly 60 years so far. As for editing, of the three, poetry presents a difficult and different task. With nonfiction there is the need to confirm all is succinctly presented. For fiction, how does the story develop, and yet for poetry, how to preserve and understand what is written is essential. Each requires gaining permission from the author for options offered. I say this because I value what I write, am very protective of each word and line, and also have written a lot of junk. I print out the original texts after several verbal edits, then read again to possibly make further edits. Often I have moved lines around or deleted them, seeing a need to write something that better fits. Even so, my efforts may remain dribble, and another’s editing would benefit. Yet, as I have yet to find any editor willing to take in such task, I remain with the lines as written
I felt a little confused as to what I was supposed to take away. 😅😅It wasn't until the poetry example that I was even sure that this was intentionally an exagerated put on for humor but...generally there is some take away. Is this the author taking the piss out of themselves? out of editor hubris? Letting out a bit of frustration at poets side-eyeing of them by attempting ironic intionally clueless self-depreciation by insulting poets through an unreliable narrator? Just to be silly? Are we supposed to identify with editors, identify with writers, identify with the author, identify with the silliness of it all?
There are some real gems here but I feel like sometimes I can best enjoy something if someone can let me in on the piece I'm missing?
This very moment, I am shedding tears of sympathry for the peons of Peotry, the immutable Titanic editors. I say this with great seriousity, as a Peot. Thanks, monsieur Zig (to clarify: this is pronounced Missyour)! Starting the day Snoopicitously smiling!
I was a tad disappointed as I expected something different. But, I also understood the point that it can be hard to edit poets because (it seems) they are more likely than people who submit longer works to want their works edited, thinking the work perfect already. My guess as to why the author experienced this is Zipf's Law (in short, you're more likely to get a lot more of small things than big things, and big things are more likely to keep growing because it's easier to latch on to them - see the video at VSauce for more. I could've also used the Pareto Principle). Using these principles, one would end up with way more poets than essay writers, and way more poems (which I understand is true of lit mags submissions). But, because they are shorter and ostensibly easier, there are bound to be more poets -- or, more precisely, more amateurs suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect, thinking the know everything when they don't. And when you try to edit their stuff, they tell you all the ways in which you're wrong even though you out-experience them by years. I've been one of those writers, whose taste is … not Keats (which takes more time than most are willing to devote to appreciate) I'm sure having to deal with them full-time is exhausting.
I'm both an editor and a published poet. I have also participated in several different writers' groups and gotten many recommendations for revising my work. Some editors and writers' group members have made excellent suggestions for revision, while others have completely misunderstood my poems. In general, very rigid notions of poetry or rules don't work. For example, one member of my current writers' group strongly dislikes certain words and bans them from poems. I find this stance too rigid.
Also, editors/writers' group members must respect each author's voice. For example, I recently submitted four poems to an anthology. The editors decided to publish two of my poems, but they wanted some revisions, including requesting that I change the poems' final stanzas. I agreed to the other changes that the editors asked for. However, I e-mailed them that the poems had to be in my voice, so I insisted that the endings remain intact. The editors agreed with my compromise, fortunately, and both poems are forthcoming in this anthology.
When I co-edited the literary journal Primavera (no longer publishing), some writers were open-minded about the revisions that we editors suggested. However, other writers refused to consider changing anything and wrote us furious letters. I think that writers need to be open-minded about revisions that might improve their work.
I think that editors and writers need to treat one another with respect and to work together smoothly. Often, they can reach compromises that satisfy both parties.
Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Janet Ruth Heller
Author of the poetry books Nature’s Olympics (Wipf and Stock, 2021), Exodus (WordTech Editions, 2014), Folk Concert: Changing Times (Anaphora Literary Press, 2012) and Traffic Stop (Finishing Line Press, 2011), the scholarly book Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the Reader of Drama (University of Missouri Press, 1990), the middle-grade chapter book for kids The Passover Surprise (Fictive Press, 2015, 2016), and the award-winning picture book for kids about bullying, How the Moon Regained Her Shape (Arbordale, 2006; seventh edition 2022).
Maybe this essay needed editing? Because for most of it I couldn't tell whether or not it was intended as humor.
I wouldn't call it thankless.
I receive a boatload of lovely comments (and personalized notes) from readers and contributors.
I think it depends on your intentions/mission + how you go about engaging with your niche area of the literary community.
Loved it! Especially the 2 paragraphs on the "poets" (Leonardo Bellows etc. etc.) Gorgeous satire, great fun! :). And since the message of the second half appears to be "Those who can, write; those who can't, edit" -- I assume it was actually written by a writer not an editor? -- OK, OK, I admit, I Googled him to make sure... ;).
I write the following in the same vein as this poetry editor, in other words with my tongue stuck firmly in my cheek: Keats was obviously ill-informed or dumb because he had “stout Cortez silent upon a peak in Darien” when everybody knows it was Núñez de Balboa up there looking at what he called the Southern Sea, and which we know as the Pacific Ocean. I actually wrote a little poem called “Keats Tweets” debunking his assertion.😊
I loved this--so funny, especially the pimply Keats!
Hilarious! I have edited some poetry, fiction, and nonfiction. Primarily, I write poetry, and have done so for nearly 60 years so far. As for editing, of the three, poetry presents a difficult and different task. With nonfiction there is the need to confirm all is succinctly presented. For fiction, how does the story develop, and yet for poetry, how to preserve and understand what is written is essential. Each requires gaining permission from the author for options offered. I say this because I value what I write, am very protective of each word and line, and also have written a lot of junk. I print out the original texts after several verbal edits, then read again to possibly make further edits. Often I have moved lines around or deleted them, seeing a need to write something that better fits. Even so, my efforts may remain dribble, and another’s editing would benefit. Yet, as I have yet to find any editor willing to take in such task, I remain with the lines as written
I felt a little confused as to what I was supposed to take away. 😅😅It wasn't until the poetry example that I was even sure that this was intentionally an exagerated put on for humor but...generally there is some take away. Is this the author taking the piss out of themselves? out of editor hubris? Letting out a bit of frustration at poets side-eyeing of them by attempting ironic intionally clueless self-depreciation by insulting poets through an unreliable narrator? Just to be silly? Are we supposed to identify with editors, identify with writers, identify with the author, identify with the silliness of it all?
There are some real gems here but I feel like sometimes I can best enjoy something if someone can let me in on the piece I'm missing?
This was some funny ass shit.
This very moment, I am shedding tears of sympathry for the peons of Peotry, the immutable Titanic editors. I say this with great seriousity, as a Peot. Thanks, monsieur Zig (to clarify: this is pronounced Missyour)! Starting the day Snoopicitously smiling!
Was this a humor piece? I didn’t quite get it 😅😅
That's hilarious. Very dry wit.
I was a tad disappointed as I expected something different. But, I also understood the point that it can be hard to edit poets because (it seems) they are more likely than people who submit longer works to want their works edited, thinking the work perfect already. My guess as to why the author experienced this is Zipf's Law (in short, you're more likely to get a lot more of small things than big things, and big things are more likely to keep growing because it's easier to latch on to them - see the video at VSauce for more. I could've also used the Pareto Principle). Using these principles, one would end up with way more poets than essay writers, and way more poems (which I understand is true of lit mags submissions). But, because they are shorter and ostensibly easier, there are bound to be more poets -- or, more precisely, more amateurs suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect, thinking the know everything when they don't. And when you try to edit their stuff, they tell you all the ways in which you're wrong even though you out-experience them by years. I've been one of those writers, whose taste is … not Keats (which takes more time than most are willing to devote to appreciate) I'm sure having to deal with them full-time is exhausting.
My condolences.
Dear Colleagues,
I'm both an editor and a published poet. I have also participated in several different writers' groups and gotten many recommendations for revising my work. Some editors and writers' group members have made excellent suggestions for revision, while others have completely misunderstood my poems. In general, very rigid notions of poetry or rules don't work. For example, one member of my current writers' group strongly dislikes certain words and bans them from poems. I find this stance too rigid.
Also, editors/writers' group members must respect each author's voice. For example, I recently submitted four poems to an anthology. The editors decided to publish two of my poems, but they wanted some revisions, including requesting that I change the poems' final stanzas. I agreed to the other changes that the editors asked for. However, I e-mailed them that the poems had to be in my voice, so I insisted that the endings remain intact. The editors agreed with my compromise, fortunately, and both poems are forthcoming in this anthology.
When I co-edited the literary journal Primavera (no longer publishing), some writers were open-minded about the revisions that we editors suggested. However, other writers refused to consider changing anything and wrote us furious letters. I think that writers need to be open-minded about revisions that might improve their work.
I think that editors and writers need to treat one another with respect and to work together smoothly. Often, they can reach compromises that satisfy both parties.
Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Janet Ruth Heller
Author of the poetry books Nature’s Olympics (Wipf and Stock, 2021), Exodus (WordTech Editions, 2014), Folk Concert: Changing Times (Anaphora Literary Press, 2012) and Traffic Stop (Finishing Line Press, 2011), the scholarly book Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the Reader of Drama (University of Missouri Press, 1990), the middle-grade chapter book for kids The Passover Surprise (Fictive Press, 2015, 2016), and the award-winning picture book for kids about bullying, How the Moon Regained Her Shape (Arbordale, 2006; seventh edition 2022).
My website is https://www.janetruthheller.com/
Divine light, like a Snoopy nightlight... lol. So absurd! This whole article is hilariously ridiculous, and I am here for it.
This is sarcasm, right?