drafts: time to write chainpoem #1. w00t!!!
Here’s the dealio. We got lots of responses to our call for guest writers for the first-ever Poetry Collaborative chainpoem. I had to cap it at 14 writers, since with any more I feared things would just get ridiculous.
Oh and also, I am changing up the process. If we play this thing out in e-mail, the poem could stall out somewhere and we’d never know where, or rather we’d only figure out where with great difficulty. Best to write it in the comments for this post, where we can all keep an eye on the poem as it progresses and prompt (i.e., nag) the next person on the list if needed.
So here is the list of writers for this piece and the order in which we’re going to work this thing.
Update: This was great fun! We’ve all taken a turn writing our lines, and what’s posted below is our rough draft. Each author is noted at the end of the line he or she wrote. Those of us who worked on building this piece will be revising the poem individually and posting those revisions on our respective sites, linking back to this post. To see who has posted a revision, check the comments section, where the co-authors of this piece will be leaving permalinks to their revisions so you can take a look at them.
Note: If you want your individual rewrite critiqued, please indicate that in the body of your post.
* * *
We thought it was a sign, the sudden (Jo)
shattering of the sky. The screaming prophets (Lirone)
picking at lint balls in their pockets (Dana)
We thought it a sign, the flying (Leslie)
out of orbit of the world; but what (Rethabile)
to make of the coffee becalmed in its cup, (Dave)
the street’s slow traffic gangling past (Nathan)
our doors and windows, all bolted (Blythe)
against crows and grackles pitching (Christine)
an iridescent black sea of tails flicker across our lawns (Susan)
but the old crones tell us it’s not (Whirling Dervish)
the sky above us we should fear. (Schmutzie)
Instead, we should fear ourselves, our own (Kay)
unwilling witness of this unstable moment. (Jessica)
We can start with a title or come back to the title at the end. That’s up to Jo. So let’s go people! Time to write this thang!
We thought it was a sign, the sudden
shattering of the sky. The screaming prophets
picking at lint balls in their pockets
We thought it a sign, the flying
We thought it was a sign, the sudden
shattering of the sky. The screaming prophets
picking at lint balls in their pockets.
We thought it a sign, the flying
out of orbit of the world; but what
to make of the coffee becalmed in its cup,
the street’s slow traffic gangling past
our doors and windows, all bolted
We thought it was a sign, the sudden
shattering of the sky. The screaming prophets
picking at lint balls in their pockets.
We thought it a sign, the flying
out of orbit of the world; but what
to make of the coffee becalmed in its cup,
the street’s slow traffic gangling past
our doors and windows, all bolted
against crows and grackles pitching
an iridescent black sea of tails flicker across our lawns
but the old crones tell us it’s not
the sky above us we should fear.
We thought it was a sign, the sudden
shattering of the sky. The screaming prophets
picking at lint balls in their pockets.
We thought it a sign, the flying
out of orbit of the world; but what
to make of the coffee becalmed in its cup,
the street’s slow traffic gangling past
our doors and windows, all bolted
against crows and grackles pitching
an iridescent black sea of tails flicker across our lawns
but the old crones tell us it’s not
the sky above us we should fear.
Instead, we should fear ourselves, our own
We thought it was a sign, the sudden
shattering of the sky. The screaming prophets
picking at lint balls in their pockets.
We thought it a sign, the flying
out of orbit of the world; but what
to make of the coffee becalmed in its cup,
the street’s slow traffic gangling past
our doors and windows, all bolted
against crows and grackles pitching
an iridescent black sea of tails flicker across our lawns
but the old crones tell us it’s not
the sky above us we should fear.
Instead, we should fear ourselves, our own
unwilling witness of this unstable moment.
(Naice. Are we done, Jessica, or do you want to punt it back to the first author on the list and have it keep going? Your call.)
I *really* like this poem. Nice linkages, people.
Mmm — feels done-ish to me, but if Jo has something to add, we can keep on rolling.
Nope, that seems like a damn fine finish to me, Jessica.
I think it’s done. Nice ending, Jessica. You had your work cut out for you and you were fantabulous.
Do we want to group edit the poem or something? We could do so here or in private on a shared Google doc. Or we can leave it as is if we want. Whatevz.
Of course, I’d pick at my contribution. Should there be ‘that’ before ‘flicker’?
Really like this.
Tell me, was anyone besides me worrying if their line would work?
Susan, I think we were all biting our nails. Or maybe just you and me.
Blame it on the English major in me, but I’m not convinced this is done. I’m a believer in revision and critique. I think we start with rough drafts that usually benefit from revision and feedback.
We need a title. Titles are a part of the poem and they say something. What is this poem about? Does each line progress the poem? I don’t think you have to understand every line to get something out of a poem but I do think every line says something.
Too many workshops? I think a good poem stands up to critique and feedback.
Titles are important and introduce a poem. They’re the first line. So not “untitled”, please, for this good poem. Something about a sign, perhaps, “The Sign” maybe, or something along those lines because “The Sign” sounds too uppity and too not enough at the same time.
So, when’s the next chain thingy?
That’s good, “The Sign” or “Sign” for the title.
To clarify: When I asked if the poem was done, I meant if we were done adding lines or if Jessica wanted to put the piece back up to the top of the list for more lines to be added as per the rules-o-the-game.
I also asked if people wanted to group revise the poem in some way. I don’t see that anyone said anything about too many workshops. Am I overlooking a comment to that effect?
I *do* think if we move forward with a group workshop on this piece, all the writers who contributed lines need to:
1. agree that we want to do so.
2. decide on the tone and manner in which such an undertaking will be accomplished.
I would also like to point out that an important part of the collaborative process is the process. We’ve already done a lot of very good work here simply by working thoughtfully together on this piece. So whether or not we move forward to a revision phase, we haven’t wasted our time in writing this poem.
(I liken most writing exercises to warming up with scales every day as a musician. The scales get things loosened up, flowing. The scales will never be “done” or performed. Though they are not a product per se, their practice is its own end and ultimately supports the musician in becoming a better player.)
Things can get shitty and off-base in workshops real fast, and I don’t think anyone wants that sort of vibe to play out in the context of The Poetry Collaborative. I know I don’t. Nobody should ever leave here feeling bruised or ruffled or like a worse writer than they felt they were when they arrived. Hence my concern about moving into revision thoughtfully and respectfully and with the agreement of the writers on this piece that it’s what we all want to do.
Rethabile, the next chain thingy. Good question. Next week maybe? The collaborative needs to talk about that and decide how often we’ll go them. Did you like it? It’s sort of fun, no?
Nathan, maybe we could each throw out a title option here in the comments and see if any of them stick. I personally would be interested in seeing what kinds of titles different people would use to frame this piece.
My proposed title is “Untitled.”
(Just kidding, Rethabile.)
I think group revision would be an interesting undertaking, although I have found that letting a poem rest for awhile before revising helps. Could we revise it in a week or two?
In terms of titles, I suck at making titles, so I may have to stew on it for awhile.
Dana,
It’s mucho fun, as is the WBW (got that right this time). If there’s space in the next one I’m very in.
Hey, this is great!
For a title, I’d like to suggest “what we thought was true”.
It would be interesting to revise together, but a bit hard to do with so many people involved. And actually the only thing I’d want to change would be to work in another repetition of “We thought it was a sign” between lines 10 and 11, just to bring it full circle.
piping in here, although i didn’t help with this one so it may be none of my business … maybe just in the interest of the process for chain poem on the site in general …
regarding revision of a poem with so many writers: i think it’s best if the writing of the poem is looked @ like dana said, warm-up, stretch, scales. i tend to look at all of my early-stage writing that way. then, perhaps, people could revise on their own and post their renditions on their blogs, giving full credit to everyone who contributed to the first draft. It would be fun to cruise around and see where people went with all the ideas presented.
We’ve done that before even with 2-person line by lines and it’s neat to see both directions.
I just think with so many writers, there’d be too many cooks in the kitchen for a single, collective revision to be practical.
ladies of the poco: want to make this approach to revision part of the chain poem protocol?
I think that Carolee’s idea has some pretty hot gams.
I also think that it can be posible for people to edit seperately, and come back and compare edits in twos and threes…
What slynne said.
I have a revision of this are we just posting them on our blogs or in the comments?
Nathan, I will email everyone who worked on this and let them know that we can all post them on our own blogs with our own individual revisions then link back to this post, per Carolee’s suggested method. How’s that sound?
Sounds good
[...] Each line was contributed by a different author. This is my revision of the final product. Visit here for a list of authors and links to their revisions and to see the unrevised [...]
Here’s my revision
http://disorder1313.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/the-sign-a-chainpoem
[...] and post the results here. I hope I don’t ruffle any feathers with the extent of my revision. Read the original to see how much I’ve altered, and who contributed which words and [...]
Mine is here:
yo, another co-po
[...] To see the original, click through to this post: time to write chainpoem #1: w00t! [...]
[...] we were then invited to do our own revisions of the original draft. This is my revision - click here to see the original poem and links to other people’s [...]
My revision’s here. As ever in revision, some of the phrases and images I liked most had to go…
Here’s my link. Why doesn’t my pingback show up? I’m such a newb.
http://tinyurl.com/5jweah
I’ve gotta say that so far my revisions look puny compared to the others. I need to learn that words can be changed if I want to change them! Fun stuff.
PS
I don’t want a critique on my revision skills, because all I did was re-group the lines and phrases! People could have a field day with me, so no pot shots, please!
Okay, I got back here late. No revision, but I have commented. Now I see Christine’s post and I wonder if I have stepped out of bounds. What is the expectation regarding these revisions?
And what does ‘play nice’ mean? I’ve never liked this phrase but I do believe in being sensitive and respectful. I also think writers get together to engage in candid dialogue about the writing process so someone tell me when do or don’t we offer critique.
I can be bull in the china store. I’m not malevolent but if you’re a bull you don’t have the grace of a ballerina.
I need to learn that words can be changed if I want to change them!
Unless, Christine, they don’t want to be changed. They can be stubborn and stomp their descenders when they feel threatened.
Susan, are you referring to ‘play nice’ on my blog post? I was talking about collaboration, and I did not have you in mind when I wrote those words.
Sorry you don’t like the phrase. I meant it like this– to avoid letting one’s ego get in the way when working with another person. That’s all.
Christine,
I didn’t think you were referring to me in particular. My issue with the phrase go way back and maybe I should have been clear why it bothers. I agree with how you meant it though I was not think solely in terms of collaboration.
For me play nice means better to go along than be honest. It means be polite regardless of how you honestly feel. Play nice is often said to women when others feel that their behavior otherwise is inappropriate.
And let me clarify that I am focused on my own issues. I worry about collaboration because often it is done with folks among people where trust and history is absent. If a fellow writer doesn’t value your opinion and judgment, he is less likely to welcome critique and suggestion for revision.
We moved forward to revise without first discussing what is exceptionally good in this draft, what is working and what needs work and why. There was no discussion why while a line might be coo but might be edited. In short, where did we talk about this work before moving to the next phase? Had there been more dialogue about for example tone as Dana said in #2, there would have been an opportunity for those of us who have no history with other members and less familiar with each other’s approach to writing and process, we could have cultivated trust and comfort and hopefully figured out where we wanted to take this. Instead, we moved away to create more material.
And the above text illustrates why I need an edit button and value revision.
Susan, we appreciate your feedback and will be more explicit when we extend invitations to guest writers to work on future pieces. We felt our post and email to the writers involved in this piece were clear. We will take into consideration what you have said, but the process needs to fall to the individual to determine how he or she wants people to respond to their work when it appears on their own sites.
We also need to be sensitive to the fact that poets are writing here for different reasons and with varying degrees of experience, not only in terms of writing and critique but also in terms of collaboration. And another thing to keep in mind is that critique is difficult to carry off well in an online environment.
We prefer to have people actively engaged in the process rather than treating the exercises as a workshop, since The Poetry Collaborative is not designed to be a workshop. We feel the manner in which we handled this exercise has allowed people to learn a lot about collaboration, drafting and revision without having an explicit workshop vibe or approach.
We are sorry you didn’t feel this exercise met your needs.
thepoco,
Then I have failed to understand what was explicit. I fully appreciate the need to be sensitive and to recognize the varying levels of experience. For what it’s worth, I have seen critique done well online.
I apologize if I come off as insensitive. Frankly, I think the people who read and write here are beyond the thin-skinned, skiddish stage in their writing experience, and the group as a whole, demonstrates a skill set and a understanding of craft beyond that of a novice. I think critique can work here.
I’ve read there is no learning without controversy. Maybe, I’m pushing buttons. If we’re not coming here to be challenged or if there is no room to question here, I think that is a lost opportunity. But I must remember that I was an invited guest not member.
I respect the effort it takes to write and participate here seriously. I spend a good deal of time of reading here, and reading and commenting to your individual blogs because I think you can write. And I comment as I do, because I believe you’re committed to your craft and supporting your peers.
I’ll be careful not to overstep my welcome.
My poem-revision, as it is, is on it’s way….just wanted to let you know that I did not forget, because I do sincerely hope to be invited back to play again!
WD, I am evil incarnate. I think I left you out of the email notification that we were working on this. Can you forgive me?
I have - at last - posted my version … I hope I will be forgiven … here is the link
http://andbottlewasher.blogspot.com/2008/09/gangles-and-grackles.html
Kay, your piece is fantastic. Of course.
Finally. My revision/version of our poem. Cheers.
Oh, goodie! Off to read it, Reth.
[...] Poem written by some of us over at the Poetry Collaborative…. watch this space and go here for original [...]
[...] Filed under: Uncategorized — Kay @ 8:13 am Here is my adapted version of the collaborative poem group’s first chain poem. I have severely mangled it and I hope I will be forgiven - but it was so much [...]