Cost-Benefit Analysis on poetry?

(Copywrite R. Allen 09)

Throwing the obscure and redrafted poem into the bear pit this morning was pretty useful. I had been convinced everyone would prefer the latter as it went a lot further in addressing the narrative problem of the first attempt. But in the end, there were those who preferred the more obscure version. It was decided that by redrafting, the new poem has lost some of its lyricism and flow, despite having more clarity in the meaning. I had also taken out some imagery and they wanted this back in, the answer to this being I'll save it for another poem. It seems that in trying to meet the reader half-way I had sacrificed some of what makes my writing appealing, yet in return I'd delivered accessibility and gained readers that struggled with the original. In truth, the first version was more 'me' but it was refreshing to see people openly understand my writing for a change and I think I prefer that feeling than the feeling that I've successfully scratched my own head.

I will redraft (version 12) at some point, to try and get it to flow again like the original and to perhaps take out the words that were hang-overs from trying to tie up the narrative. Maybe I'll write every poem with a CBA in mind - what am I losing but what am I gaining? Is something lost, lost forever. If I hadn't redrafted I wouldn't have seen the possibility of getting a second poem out of it - pouring all of my arsenal in to one was perhaps a waste of resources.

This was a new method of writing and drafting that I have not tried before. I usually try and be a bit more organic (hate that word) but for those of us who tend to the obscure then I think it's a good idea to find a method for making sure the story is there and not clogged with ideas.