To edit or not to edit - Norman MacCaig

I was introduced (by www.livecanon.co.uk) to an interview between Magnus Magnusson and the late poet Norman MacCaig.

You can access it here: https://movingimage.nls.uk/film/2802

There was a lot that was interesting but two things seemed worth discussing here.

Firstly, he never revises his poems; they are written down straight away and they either work or they do not. He considers this to be very wasteful, estimating that out of 10 poems, 6 are worthless, 3 will appear in magazines and 1 or 2 into a book. He is adamant about not revising, saying that he can't. Magnusson asks him about his process with a tone of awe, and MacCaig talks about receiving the poem from 'nothing in [his] head' and writing it in the time it takes to smoke 'two fags'. He assures us that he doesn't believe in inspiration, but he behaves as if he has no idea how it happens. Personally I think that he has been writing poems for so long (by his own confession, starting out quite badly) that he, like an improvising musician, could produce something that was better than most people's studied work. I wonder what would have happened if he'd worked on being even better?

Secondly, they discuss the 'lucidity' of a poem and he says 'if a poem seems to me to be wilfully obscure or obscure because the man [sic] hasn't got his mind clear about what he's writing about then ... I consider it to be not only bad art but bad manners because poetry is surely a communication'. In the context of 1977 and his upbringing this is quite radical as, for most of the 20th century, the audience or reader was responsible for understanding, rather than the artist being responsible for communicating. This is certainly true of classical music, with deliberate alienation by the serialists of the early 20th century.

I would be very interested to hear what anyone else thinks. Apologies for it being poetry rather than prose, but I hope you find discussing the editing process thought-provoking.

Fran