Skip to main content

On Typos In Poetry

Typos - beauty mark or cancer on the face of our poetry collections?  What poet does not turn to their poem, their bio, in a journal, to see if it has been blighted?  What book, no matter how carefully screened, vetted, pruned, pried at, inspected, and glowered upon, does not seem to smuggle in a typo, or two?  Like bedbugs - where do they come from?  Something there is in language that does not love perfection - or at least, in type-setting.  Even with a slew of eyes on the text, they come in, unwanted visitors, stowaways, thieves of our ideals, mocking us, belittling the book.  Or, should they be read as delightful imps, welcome scallywags?  Reminders of our flaws, modest interlopers, gadflies of marring benevolence?  Either way, what you print is not always what you get, or what you wanted is not always what's inscribed.  Eyewear is riddled with them, so is the wider world.  Let's dunce.
Labels:

Comments

Sheenagh Pugh said…
I think a poet's own typos are often the subconscious mind working; we should be prepared to let the keyboard join in the creative process. But typos happen in the printing process for two reasons. First, poets seldom have any real training in proof-reading; they read what they expect to see, like most folks. I used to work in a government legal division proofing statutory instruments; if you get it wrong there. you're looking at expensive amending legislation, so you don't, mostly (because you use techniques like reading the text backwards and cross-checking with someone else).

The other reason, I'm afraid, is that too many poets and editors these days don't know "it's" from "its", and similar potential errors, in the first place...
Wed Nov 03, 03:02:00 pm 2010
Unknown said…
I don't unerstand wat you're talking about.
Wed Nov 03, 09:28:00 pm 2010
Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

The surprising thing is how often a typo actually improves a poem! I agree with Sheenagh. I think it's (correct, Sheenagh?) sometimes the subconscious mind endeavouring to have the last word.

Best wishes from Simon
Thu Nov 04, 10:40:00 am 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
3 comments
Read more