I guess I don't like a willed, overwrought kind of poem. I hardly revise a poem at all. With my bad poems there is little point! If I hit on something good head on, on the first attempt, I'm not going to spoil it with second thoughts. This is probably a weakness of mine, because I can see how limiting it is. It almost sounds arrogant, but it is not.
I don't really like Elizabeth Bishop, I decided. She is very good, but I don't find much that appeals to my sensibility of careless ease. Everything she writes seems so effortful. There's one sestina she wrote that I do like, but I have a soft spot for sestinas.
There is nothing wrong with Bishop. She is not sentimental, or a bad writer. She never uses cliché language. I would never argue with someone for whom that aesthetic was the ideal, because she does embody it. Yeats argues that a line can take hours to perfect, but that if it does not seem "a moment's thought / all our stitching and unstitching is for nought." Revision is not bad, then, but the poem still has to sound as fresh as if it were not revised.