Growth as a Poet Reflection
From my first draft to my final draft, my perspective evolved tremendously, as can be anticipated whenever a hundred word poem is revised to be a poem approaching four hundred words. With these fairly substantial additions, I feel I was able to much better flesh out my perspective. Regardless of the length, the content of my poem faced some serious revision. The first two drafts of my poem were entirely different from each other in both message and style, and part of the revision process for me was deciding on which one best communicated what I was trying to convey as a poet, which was very difficult for me. Ultimately I went with the perspective of my first draft over that of my second, and spent the rest of my time expanding on the already existing message to make it clearer to the reader. My first draft sounded very far-fetched and was full of abstract concepts I never really elaborated on, like “So keep us in the dark / Because it is better to be blind / Than to have the world illuminated/ By the flare of gunfire.” This was a very bold claim that I didn’t go on to explain, therefore my perspective was very weakly present in my poem. By almost outlining my thought process in later drafts, I was able to strengthen my perspective, as I went on add a fairly substantial explanation: “Better to see nothing than to see red / Than to be so overwhelmed with the light / That our photos develop distortedly / That our hands by nature / Snap up to cover our eyes, / Leaving our only view of the world as / Rays of radiation through our fingers.”
The first important change I made to my poem was capitalizing on opportunities for more powerful imagery. For example, in the first stanza of my first draft, I include the phrase “with these poison tongues.” While I liked the idea of having the tongue be the producer of the poison rather than the consumer of it, I felt that it would be much more powerful if I elaborated on it by including more imagery and references to the effects of such a poison. These changes can be seen in my final draft, which instead reads, “With these poison tongues of our virtue / We salivate truths, drooling like dogs, / Infecting whoever will listen with / Realities of our own devising.” With this addition, I appealed to other things associated with poison, like infection, and also introduced the imagery of truth as saliva. This impacts the intellectual message of my poem because it brings to light the comparison between the two seemingly unlike things of truth and poison. This implies that rather than bringing peace and clarity to the world, the truth is used as a weapon of sorts. The emotional message is impacted by these changes because the image of a drooling dog connotes impressions of disgust which conflicts with the generally positive and accepting perception of truth. This brings into question the role of truth in our war-ravaged world, in which truth is a major factor. I think this change greatly improves my poem by deepening my message and by providing more possible interpretations for the reader.
Another revision I made was also in the first stanza, where I took out the part saying, “We spin the fibers / That bind into walls / To protect us from / Conflicting realities.” While I originally was trying to portray truth as a trapping force, I realized that that depiction didn’t necessarily capture the more deceptive and violent aspects of truth. After all, walls are pretty obvious forms of confinement, and are thought of as keeping conflict out rather than foster it. To fix this, I replaced the idea of walls with the idea of our vision being contaminated by the concept of truth. This revision included the lines “Our eyes coated with a sticky film opaque with age, / Long since tainted red with blood, / Stained with the crimson of one too many horror stories, / One too many blows to the vulnerable stomach / Of our otherwise brawny pride.” I feel this change impact the intellectual message of my poem by much better communicating the stance I take on truth in this poem. With all of the metaphors I included in the poem about truth and lies, I felt my message was muddled by figurative language that didn’t accurately represent what I was trying to say as a poet. By more strategically choosing my wording and eliminating what didn’t work, I felt I was able to clarify my perspective for the reader. I think this change is emotionally impactful because it paved the way for more striking language. A “sticky film opaque with age” is much easier to go into detail on, I feel, than some abstract idea of a wall woven from fibers, as I felt a description in that case would end up coming across too literally. Instead, I was able to bring in words that strike an immediate emotional reaction, like “blood,” “horror stories,” and “blows to the vulnerable stomach”. I think the change I made drastically improves my poem because it allows for me to bring in the idea of the violence truth brings being backed by a history of violence and fear, which was a central theme that I wanted to highlight right from the start of my poem.
Approaching the final draft, I made a revision to the third version of my poem, adding several new stanzas. One of these additions included the section “All the better, for even the most severe / Inflammatory reactions / Can’t compete with the blazing chemicals / Dropped from airplanes / Designed for / Red, red, red.” I felt this section needed to be revised after several critiques telling me that it didn’t make sense, and didn’t fit in the context of the rest of the poem. I completely agreed with these points, however I was struggling with a way to revise this part, as it included ideas that to me were integral components of my message. I just hadn’t found the right wording or integration in this draft. Luckily, this part was only temporarily detrimental to my poem, as I made it its own stanza and changed the wording to read, “But what does it matter? / Even the most severe / Inflammatory reactions / Can’t compete with the blazing chemicals / Dropped from airplanes / Designed for / Red. / Blood speckling streets, / Fires burning rooftops, / Hate of war, / Red.” The difference between this and my previous draft was that I clarified what red symbolized and, in doing so, was able to directly tie in this stanza with the message of my poem. This change impacts the intellectual message of the poem by bringing to mind all the possible interpretations and connotations of the color red. In war, the color red seems to be a recurring theme, which is what I wanted the reader to recognize when reading this addition. My intent was to somehow concentrate the main concepts of the hate, pain, and horror of war into a simple symbol that the reader would normally consider in that way. The change impacts the emotional message of my poem because in my recitation, this part served as the perfect opportunity to quicken my pacing and put more emotion behind my words, as the way it is worded naturally flows almost urgently. It also helped to establish a definite mood when I recited because it ends so simply, and takes a pause so the the audience can react to the classic representations of war. I think these changes improve my poem by going more in-depth with my figurative language so that the reader can process the poem without having to digest a confusing section for longer than necessary.
The first important change I made to my poem was capitalizing on opportunities for more powerful imagery. For example, in the first stanza of my first draft, I include the phrase “with these poison tongues.” While I liked the idea of having the tongue be the producer of the poison rather than the consumer of it, I felt that it would be much more powerful if I elaborated on it by including more imagery and references to the effects of such a poison. These changes can be seen in my final draft, which instead reads, “With these poison tongues of our virtue / We salivate truths, drooling like dogs, / Infecting whoever will listen with / Realities of our own devising.” With this addition, I appealed to other things associated with poison, like infection, and also introduced the imagery of truth as saliva. This impacts the intellectual message of my poem because it brings to light the comparison between the two seemingly unlike things of truth and poison. This implies that rather than bringing peace and clarity to the world, the truth is used as a weapon of sorts. The emotional message is impacted by these changes because the image of a drooling dog connotes impressions of disgust which conflicts with the generally positive and accepting perception of truth. This brings into question the role of truth in our war-ravaged world, in which truth is a major factor. I think this change greatly improves my poem by deepening my message and by providing more possible interpretations for the reader.
Another revision I made was also in the first stanza, where I took out the part saying, “We spin the fibers / That bind into walls / To protect us from / Conflicting realities.” While I originally was trying to portray truth as a trapping force, I realized that that depiction didn’t necessarily capture the more deceptive and violent aspects of truth. After all, walls are pretty obvious forms of confinement, and are thought of as keeping conflict out rather than foster it. To fix this, I replaced the idea of walls with the idea of our vision being contaminated by the concept of truth. This revision included the lines “Our eyes coated with a sticky film opaque with age, / Long since tainted red with blood, / Stained with the crimson of one too many horror stories, / One too many blows to the vulnerable stomach / Of our otherwise brawny pride.” I feel this change impact the intellectual message of my poem by much better communicating the stance I take on truth in this poem. With all of the metaphors I included in the poem about truth and lies, I felt my message was muddled by figurative language that didn’t accurately represent what I was trying to say as a poet. By more strategically choosing my wording and eliminating what didn’t work, I felt I was able to clarify my perspective for the reader. I think this change is emotionally impactful because it paved the way for more striking language. A “sticky film opaque with age” is much easier to go into detail on, I feel, than some abstract idea of a wall woven from fibers, as I felt a description in that case would end up coming across too literally. Instead, I was able to bring in words that strike an immediate emotional reaction, like “blood,” “horror stories,” and “blows to the vulnerable stomach”. I think the change I made drastically improves my poem because it allows for me to bring in the idea of the violence truth brings being backed by a history of violence and fear, which was a central theme that I wanted to highlight right from the start of my poem.
Approaching the final draft, I made a revision to the third version of my poem, adding several new stanzas. One of these additions included the section “All the better, for even the most severe / Inflammatory reactions / Can’t compete with the blazing chemicals / Dropped from airplanes / Designed for / Red, red, red.” I felt this section needed to be revised after several critiques telling me that it didn’t make sense, and didn’t fit in the context of the rest of the poem. I completely agreed with these points, however I was struggling with a way to revise this part, as it included ideas that to me were integral components of my message. I just hadn’t found the right wording or integration in this draft. Luckily, this part was only temporarily detrimental to my poem, as I made it its own stanza and changed the wording to read, “But what does it matter? / Even the most severe / Inflammatory reactions / Can’t compete with the blazing chemicals / Dropped from airplanes / Designed for / Red. / Blood speckling streets, / Fires burning rooftops, / Hate of war, / Red.” The difference between this and my previous draft was that I clarified what red symbolized and, in doing so, was able to directly tie in this stanza with the message of my poem. This change impacts the intellectual message of the poem by bringing to mind all the possible interpretations and connotations of the color red. In war, the color red seems to be a recurring theme, which is what I wanted the reader to recognize when reading this addition. My intent was to somehow concentrate the main concepts of the hate, pain, and horror of war into a simple symbol that the reader would normally consider in that way. The change impacts the emotional message of my poem because in my recitation, this part served as the perfect opportunity to quicken my pacing and put more emotion behind my words, as the way it is worded naturally flows almost urgently. It also helped to establish a definite mood when I recited because it ends so simply, and takes a pause so the the audience can react to the classic representations of war. I think these changes improve my poem by going more in-depth with my figurative language so that the reader can process the poem without having to digest a confusing section for longer than necessary.