Poetry Corrections from the June Meanjin
June 22
IN THE JUNE EDITION OF Meanjin you might have noticed that the poetry is dispersed throughout the journal rather than confined to a poetry section. Our hope was that dispersing the poetry would give it more prominence, as well as providing a space for reflection between other pieces.
We think this change is working well, but there were some other changes to the poetry in the June edition that were not so welcome.
Editing poetry is a notoriously tricky issue. Sometimes you simply do not know if something is a conscious choice or if it is a mistake, and of course there are conventions of formatting and layout to consider, so some editing is necessary. However at Meanjin our policy for poetry is to show any changes to the poets before they go to print, giving them the chance to separate the intentional stylistic choices from any accidental mistakes.
Unfortunately for the June edition, the poets weren’t sent final proofs of their poems before they went to print, and in some cases, the versions that went to print had been changed in the editing process. Understandably these poets were surprised and dismayed to discover versions of their poems they’d never seen before printed in the journal.
At Meanjin we would never want to print a version of anything that the author wasn’t happy with, but that is especially the case for poetry, where every decision carries so much weight. Neglecting to send final proofs to the authors was an oversight born of having a new editorial team learning the ropes, and certainly wasn’t intentional. That doesn’t make it any less disappointing for the poets concerned and I hope they accept our sincere apologies for the mistake.
Craig Billingham, one of the poets from the June edition, kindly agreed to write a piece for us about the changes, and about his process more generally, which you’ll find, along with the original versions of the altered poems, below.
Meanjin is committed to poetry, it has always been integral to what we are and why we exist. We look forward to continuing Meanjin’s tradition of printing the finest poets this country has to offer.
Zora Sanders, Deputy Editor Meanjin
Poems – the Devil in the detail
By Craig Billingham
On receiving the current issue of Meanjin I immediately scanned the contents page to see on which page my poem appeared, and to discover which other poets and fiction writers were included. I was looking for a sense of community, of writers and readers, and was doing so with a mixture of excitement and pride – it’s a thrill to see your work in Meanjin. I recognised many of the names and felt happy to be in their company.
On the page my poem looked as I’d intended. This being a sonnet with a caesura between the octet and the sestet, the visual appearance of the poem is important – this familial resemblance sets up the poem we are about to read. Secondly, the title was correct and the dedication was in place. Some people are ambivalent about dedications, but I think when a poem is made with a certain person in mind – I mean in mind at the time of writing, not as an afterthought but as a shaping influence – then the dedication is vital to the poem; it’s a way of acknowledging a debt. Certainly in this case, ‘For True’ could not have been written if Deb Westbury had not been there while I was writing it – she was, as it were, on my shoulder.
I re-read my poem, which I hadn’t done since it had been accepted by Meanjin. Everything was as I’d remembered until I came to the ninth line, at which point I realised there was something wrong with the rhythm. It may not seem like a big problem – the word ‘inside’ had been replaced with ‘in’ – but the missing syllable seemed to spoil the line. To my ear – to my tongue, to the muscles of my mouth – reading ‘inside a poem’ is more pleasant than reading ‘in a poem’. The meaning hadn’t changed but the rhythm had, and this made the poem worse than the way I’d left it.
Once I’d dusted myself off I carried on reading, until at the thirteenth line I had an aneurism. Instead of, ‘you’ll bring back rare [space] beautiful news,’ there was ‘you’ll bring back rare beautiful news’. Without that pause between ‘rare’ and ‘beautiful’ the expression is very clunky. In this case the meaning had been changed, and the published meaning was not the one intended – the news brought back is both rare and beautiful, which in a subtle way is different from a thing of rare beauty.
I was disappointed by my poem. I read the two on the opposing page. They were by Kim Cheng Boey, and they read beautifully. But perhaps there were errors in his poems, and I wasn’t seeing them? Maybe I was being too precious about my own work. Faced with both versions of the poem, would a reader even notice the differences, let alone think my preferred version was the better of the two?
As a poet editing my own work, I spend a considerable amount of time polishing the language – the rhythm mostly, but also the tone and the weight of individual words. I work until I’m satisfied I have it right, by which I mean, it’s as good as I can make it. I then submit my poems to a journal – sometimes they will be accepted, but often not. Accepted poems become the responsibility of the editors. Some journals provide proofs, usually in pdf format – this allows writers to check their work. Unfortunately in this instance this didn’t occur, for the reasons Zora has explained. But Meanjin has provided an opportunity for the corrected work to appear online, which underscores the editors’ commitment to the work they have chosen to publish. Who knows – perhaps Meanjin will soon offer audio files of poems which also appear in print? I know there are other poems containing errors in this current issue of Meanjin, and it would be interesting to hear what those who have read both versions make of the corrections to the poems now published on the website. Do the changes make a difference?
Please click on the poems to see the full size version.
N.B. Luke’s Poem was added 27/06/11
Our Friends
- Overland
- Alien Onion
- Ampersand Duck
- Andrew McDonald
- A Pair of Ragged Claws
- Arts Victoria
- Australia Council for the Arts
- Ben Eltham
- Bookshow blog
- CAL
- City of Tongues
- Crikey
- darkly wise, rudely great
- David Astle
- Elmo Keep Does Stuff
- The Ember
- Fly the Falcon blog
- Going Down Swinging
- Griffith Review
- Hackpacker
- Harvest
- HEAT
- Island
- Killings blog
- Literary Minded
- Lorraine Crescent
- Lynden Barber
- Mandy Ord
- Marcus Westbury
- Matilda
- Meanland
- Melbourne University Publishing
- Mel Campbell
- The Monthly
- Musings of an Inappropriate Woman
- Oslo Davis
- Paul Callaghan
- Read, Think, Write
- Sleepers Publishing
- Sorrow at Sills Bend
- SPLOG
- Tom Cho
- Virgule
- Wet Ink
- Wheeler Centre
Comments
22 Jun 11 at 14:17
I know the feeling, I recently had ‘half’ a poem published in a small American journal. Thankfully Overland let me document my angst at http://web.overland.org.au/2011/05/the-bacopa-saga/ . At least Meanjin is gracious enough the acknowledge the mistake in not sending proofs, I’ve never heard anything more from the journal that ‘published’ my poem.
...23 Jun 11 at 19:51
Above, is my intended version of ‘Equidae’. It doesn’t differ that much from how it appeared in print; there are now italics in the fourth line and less spacing appears in the latter half of the poem. The pedant in me had to have these things fixed. Maybe that’s a sad thing. Still, what’s intended is what’s intended.
I really appreciate Zora Sanders' utter professionalism, commitment to the purity of form and openness to publishing my work again.
I hope the poem makes you gallop or stomp your hoof.
Lorrne Johnson Bundanoon NSW
...24 Jun 11 at 1:21
It should be a cardinal rule of journal editing that you never go to print without giving authors a chance to correct page proofs (galleys). I noticed in my recent experience with Meanjin that this step was omitted, but, although in my case the text was fine, I would strongly urge you to go back to the tried and true method. Edit, typeset, send out author proofs, correct, and only then print. Christina Thompson, editor, Harvard Review
...26 Jun 11 at 22:29
Oh my heart goes out to everyone involved in this process, the editors AND the poets. I’ve been on both sides of this equation, most recently with a poem published online with an epigram that was not included in my version of the poem, but I’ve been the editor who’s bungled a poem before too.
Kudos to Zora and all for taking steps to amend, and thanks to Craig and Mark for sharing their experiences.
I don’t think any poet should feel bad about the stress that even a single misplaced space or punctuation mark causes – poetry is in some ways the most delicately tuned literary form and there can be much weight and meaning behind every character and space, so when this is changed in any way outside your own agency, it’s a big thing.
I’ve also blogged on the exponential effect of miniscule changes upon poetry in the past – if anyone is interested you can find it here, here and here.
...26 Jun 11 at 22:31
Oh and also – nice one with the spreading the poetry throughout the mag instead of whacking it all in one great chunk. That’s a very respectful gesture that all poets should appreciate greatly.
...27 Jun 11 at 11:37
Thank you for all the comments. Although I certainly would rather this hadn’t happened, it has at least given an opportunity to talk about poetic practice and editing for publication, and I’ve been very grateful for the thoughtful feedback I’ve received from everyone. Which isn’t to say I don’t fervently hope the next edition is free of any similar issues!
...29 Jun 11 at 16:58
My poem Donkey Orchids was submitted in word perfect e-text, so the error made in the second last line, whose rhythmic disruption I noticed at once, is a mystery. The intrusive change of the verb ‘pick’ to the infinitive form ‘to pick’ has failed to follow the expressive force of the two syntactically parallel questions. ie. ‘How pick a way’ is governed NOT clumsily by ‘learn’, but by ‘can we’, so meaning ‘How (can we) pick a way’. It is the musical/emotional stresses which determine this meaning.
...01 Jul 11 at 9:08
Kudos to the new team for both the continuing commitment to poetry and the thoughtful acknowledgement of editing issues here. Page proofs to authors though – while often in effect mainly a courtesy – are your non-negotiable bit of final quality control. Best wishes for the settling in of the new team and more great issues and developments.
...