Did Edward Thomas get it right? Or could 'Adlestrop' be improved?
‘Adlestrop’, the much-loved – and much parodied – poem by Edward Thomas about stopping at a deserted railway station, shortly before the outbreak of the first world war, has been “workshopped” by a group of poets who have made changes to it and shortened it by way of “improvement”.
The workshop version by Jenny King, Pru Kitching, Marilyn Francis and Meg Cox comes complete with suggestions such as “What about deleting the final three lines?”, highlighting words in the Thomas original that are “archaic” or “redundant”, and tried-and-tested advice such as “Don’t repeat the title in the first line” and “Never start with ‘Yes’.” Accordingly, their shortened version does omit the final three lines, and removes a number of “archaic” words.
Poet and Poetry School tutor Tamar Yoseloff, writing about the four poets’ exercise in her blog, said: “The poets in question are all experienced and published, and have attended many workshops over the years, so they are all aware of the usual pitfalls when writing poems: removing cliché, redundancy, archaic diction and exaggeration. This generally makes for a stronger, tighter, better piece.”
She goes on to argue that, although their advice - “conducted in the spirt of fun” - is correct, when “applied to another poem”, it doesn’t work with ‘Adlestrop’. “Some of my students may be reading this and saying to themselves, hold on, you’re not practising what you preach.
“And it’s true, in workshops I often give advice similar to the advice the four poets here are giving their absent workshop pal Thomas (who indeed, used to workshop his poems with Robert Frost, who could be a pretty tough critic).
“Their advice is not wrong, and applied to another poem, it would no doubt improve it. But it is also true that some poems just manage to break the ‘rules’ with impunity, and their poets get away with saying things that somehow in another setting just wouldn’t hold up. It is impossible to say how that works – it just does. Somehow the right words come together in the right arrangement and make something which is unbreakable. For me, that’s Adlestrop, perfect and strange, and still fresh, 100 years on.” You can read the full blog here
Background: taking the time to remember 'Adlestrop'
Anthony Emmerson
Sat 5th Jul 2014 15:14
I guess it depends on the objective of the "workshop." I have attended and led a few in my time - with the objective of helping to inspire attendees to write something they are happy with. Hammering out the rights and wrongs, dos and don'ts of poetry is an entirely different matter, and comes down in the end to personal opinion.
I would suggest that "Adlestrop" does fairly precisely what Thomas intended it to do - record a precise moment in time and place for posterity. I can see the point in studying the poem as an exercise, and even discussing how other writers might approach the task, but "improving" it seems to hover somewhere between a mild arrogance and plagiarism by subtle alteration.
An experience which comes to mind was after a dinner party many years ago, when, after listening to a long diatribe from a self-styled expert on house-plant cultivation (yes, it was that kind of dinner party) for more than an hour, one guest paused thoughtfully before posing the question "If you're so clever then tell me, why aren't you f*****g rich?"
Is it OK to "crit" something that, by any standard has stood the test of time and impose our own modern wisdoms and idioms on it? Should we all head to the Louvre armed with our paints and brushes because we feel that we could give La Gioconda a more pleasing smile? Or, should we concentrate (certain of our abilities) on creating something original, inspired and lasting of our own? Is there any merit in the well-used adage that "Those who can do, those who can't teach"?
Regards,
A.E.