The writing life (9)

Every writer needs an editor, even – and maybe especially – someone who worked as an editor as long as I did. My most recent brush with this elementary lesson came the other day when I was writing a column about New Hampshire poets.

The idea was simple: Charles Simic was named U.S. poet laureate to succeed Donald Hall, one New Hampshire poet following another. In the column, I set out to explore why it might be that our small state has been home to three national poets laureate and at least two others poets of national note during the last quarter century.

Fourteen hundred words later, I had a meandering column with a straightforward beginning, an okay ending and too much mush in between. I also had little time before my deadline and no idea what was wrong. But at least I knew the column was off.

Fortunately, there several capable editors at the Monitor with whom I have worked for years. I asked Mark Travis to take a look at the column.

Five minutes later, Mark came over to my desk. With his nicest story-doctor face, he confirmed that the column was a misfire. I had not convinced him that living in New Hampshire had had much influence on Simic’s poems, and I had strayed far from my theme in discussing the other poets.

To fix the column, I did two things.

First, I went back to the notes of an interview I had done with Simic that afternoon about place in his poems. I found several references to strengthen the case for his being a New Hampshire poet.

Second, I slashed the middle section of the column, whose point was to show the similarities in what attracted the poets to New Hampshire and the diversity in their approach to place in their poems. The “Less is more” theory is an important journalism tenet. In each case, I looked for the one quotation or example that best made my point.

It took me about 10 minutes to make these changes. At 1,100-plus words, the length was still at the outer limit for a Sunday column, but I was out of time. I asked Mark to look at it again. The three minutes it took him seemed much longer. He gave me a thumps-up, though not rave review.

Writing this column was not as gratifying as I thought it would be. With more time, I could have improved it. But I appreciated that when I needed a safety net, Mark was there for me.

It’s amazing how murky a writer’s view of his own work can sometimes be and how clearly an experienced eye can see.