In my last post, I promised to discuss some of Roger Desy’s revisions to his poem “in the light of snow.” In his first revision, he mostly changes just the opening lines, so I will post first the original and then the 1st revision:
— pressures of fallen soft fierce snow scatter the surface hiss of fields
over the leaf-thin light fall — strewing a violet life over a nightfall earth
— as permafrost preserves an arctic iridescence under tundra winds
a deeper intemperate radiance squalls near at hand over more fertile darkness
— pressures of fallen soft fierce snow scatter a surface wisp of hiss
over the leaf-thin light fall — strewing a violet life over the onset darkness
— as frigid iridiscence preserves distant stillness over a terrain of glaze
facets of an insensitive whitening squall near at hand across a nightfall earth
The rest of the poem is more or less exactly the same as the original, except for a couple of other minor changes: the change of a couple of words in the tenth line: “dens” becomes “nests” and “under the lilac womb” becomes “under a lilac womb”; also, the addition of fertile in line 12 (“embedded in a pure serene hyacinth seamless fertile crytalline identity”). I will begin, then, by commenting on these more significant changes to the opening lines.
In the first line, Roger changes “the surface hiss of fields” to “a surface wisp of hiss”. The change from the definite to indefinite article (“THE surface hiss” vs. “A surface wisp”) may seem inconsequential but often makes a big difference in terms of what the poet calls attention to: a specific instance (a “the”) as opposed to a more generalized phenomenon (an “a”). I see why he changes “hiss of fields” to “wisp of hiss”: if you speak the words out loud, you hear the assonance, the attention to sound that every poet should be paying as s/he crafts a poem. I sometimes pay so much attention to sound that I find some sounds inappropriate or distracting in certain phrases. The ‘”p” sound in “wisp” here has that affect upon me. I like the “s” sounds in “surfaCe wiSp” and “hiSS,” but the “p” as a labial plosive (something like that–can’t remember the exact terms from my study of linguistics) is problematic for me. The meaning of the phrase is a bit compromised as well: what is a “wisp of hiss”? The original, “surface hiss of fields” doesn’t approach the level of musicality that the revised phrase achieves, but it does preserve sense at the same time that the F sound preserves echoes from earlier in the line: “fallen soft fierce snow.” (The E sound in “fields” also anticipates the E sound of “leaf-thin light fall” — and here, again, are the echoes of the F sounds). In some ways, the revised line brings too many S sounds into play, which draws a bit too much attention to the sound: “preSSureS of fallen Soft fierCe Snow Scatter a SurfaCe wiSp of hiSS” (S sounds are capitalized throughout).
As you can see, there is much to consider in the crafting of a line, or even a single phrase! And I know that Roger puts this level of thought and feeling into what he does, given the kinds of revisions he makes from draft to draft.
The next major revision is a kind of flip-flopping of phrases. In the second line, he moves “a nightfall earth” to the end of the fourth line and replaces this with “the onset darkness” (a change to the original “more fertile darkness” that it replaces). By moving this, he loses the assonance of the I sounds in “vIolet lIfe over a nIghtfall earth” (I sounds capitalized here). I like the phrase “a nightfall earth” a lot and am glad he kept it–it’s a fresh phrasing. I think it works in either location.
The third and fourth lines are also quite different from one another. The original plays on P, R, and U sounds: “peRmafRost pReseRves an aRctic iRidescence undeR tundRa winds” (R sounds capitalized). The revised third line abandons this for heavy assonance on the soft I sound: “frigid iridescence preserves distant stillness” and ends with assonance on the A sounds of “terrain of glaze.” The fourth line of the revision also loses something in the rhythm when squall changes from a verb (as it is in the original) to the object of the preposition of: “facets of an insensitive whitening squall near at hand…” The original, in my opinion, is much more in line with the rest of the poem (the multiple modifiers piled up like the snow that the poem describes: “deeper intemperate radiance squalls near at hand…”).
As I finish considering these changes, I have to say that I like the original version much better than the revisions. The one revision that I do think enhances this version of the poem comes when he adds “fertile” to the 12th line, which provides the same effect I just described: a kind of piling high of modifiers that mimics at the syntactic, formal level of the poem its content about snow: “a pure serene hyacinth seamless fertile crystalline identity.”
Ultimately, though, such revisions reflect a poet’s careful attention to the craft of the art form, and final decisions have to be left to the individual as to what most satisfies his or her needs in writing the poem in the first place.