How do editors choose what to publish? 

poetry editor oversees slim-volume remaindering operation

Being human, and therefore insatiably inquisitive when we are not either rolling drunk or asleep, we always want to know -  don't we? - why in heaven's name the poetry editor over at Fabers or Cape or Salt or Green Spearmint Press has managed to reject that manuscript of seventy-six, double-spaced pages over which we may have sweated years of ever thickening blood.

Usually, they don't really tell us though - well, who can blame them? - because they haven't got the time to go into that sort of thing when they are being paid so little, and it's raining outside, and some red-rimmed-eyed number-cruncher has once again threatened the poetry list with closure, and they are consequently engaged in a ferocious counter-attack, which may or may not involve getting all their authors - including the best-selling fiction writers - to stage a mass resignation from the ever grimmer and glummer publishing conglom in which they have never felt that they have been exactly sitting pretty...

Who would write back to a mere feed-back-thirsty poet in such trying circumstances? Precious few. Precious, precious few, at risk of over-emphasizing the point. So we thought that we would ask them for you, as a little act of public service. Why do they publish what they publish? What makes one manuscript special and another not so special?

Here is the note I sent to: Neil Astley (Bloodaxe Books), Robin Robertson (Cape), Matthew Hollis (Faber & Faber), Don Paterson (Picador), Amy Wack (Seren), Peter Jay (Anvil Press), Michael Schmidt (Carcanet Press), Tony Frazer (Shearsman), Tony Ward (Arc), Stephen Stuart-Smith (Enitharmon), Chris Hamilton-Emery (Salt), Peter Fallon (Gallery Books), John Donlan (Brick Books), Philip Hoy (Waywiser Press), and Peter and Ann Sansom (The Poetry Business). And below that are their answers, almost exactly as I received them (from time to time I did a little editorial trimming).

Make of them what you will. Judge them on a scale of ten for transparency, honesty, thoroughness. Do any of them strike you as slightly slippery or vainglorious or self-aggrandising? I very much doubt it myself. Let's not forget that these people are poetry editors.

*

Sent: 15 December 2009 10:06


Dear Poetry Editor,

I'm doing a little feature for The Bow-Wow Shop about how the editors of poetry books choose what they decide to publish: the considerations that come into play; the editorial criteria; perhaps a few words about their most notable discoveries.

I want the piece to consist largely of statements by editors, with a bit of additional commentary from me. Would you be willing to write me a couple of paragraphs? I'd love that - if you felt so inclined. I'd need the copy by the end of the first week of January.

warm wishes,

Michael Glover 

*

From: Michael Schmidt, Carcanet Press

Dear Michael

Editorial reflections

When I approach the submissions pile I am not looking for anything in particular. I know what I am after only when I find it and I find it no more than two or three times a year. I know I have found it when I feel surprise and read eagerly beyond the second or third page. When one finds one of those mind-adjusting submissions, the decision to publish is rather brisk.

What kinds of surprise? Generally it is a matter of authority, usually of rhythm as expressed in syntax, lineation, the elisions of expected order, surprises and surprising rightnesses in word combination, an earning or magicking of readerly trust and an overcoming of readerly resistance. Arranging, deepening, enchanting, like the lights of the fishing boats in Wallace Stevens' poem 'The Idea of Order at Key West'. The enchantment can result from metre, free or syllabic verse, or a more spaced out prosody; it seldom connects primarily or initially with subject-matter, though I like unfamiliarity, an exoticism even of the everyday as in O'Hara. I suspect it does connect quite specifically to vowel values and an instinct on the poet's part for vocalic progressions. I suspect too that I have an instinctive resistance to excessive consonantal weight. And I respond to tones, though less to deliberately developed 'voices'. I warm to a poetry that leaves a good deal of room for the reader, in terms of construction and in terms of collaboration (templates rather than images, perhaps, so the reader invests his or her own content in the ordering of the thing).

When I am reading submissions, and when (with relief and joy) I accept a manuscript, the question of market does not arise. The pleasure of imagining responsive readers sometimes does. Sometimes it doesn't, if the poetry is hard and excellent I know it will be resisted, but that doesn't mean it should not be published.

*

From: Ann and Peter Sansom, Smith/Doorstop Books at The Poetry Business

Like every other editor, we are more discerning than every other editor, and only publish good poems. (It is amazing how often editors who publish rubbish complain there is too much rubbish being published.)  Because of the internet and print-on-demand, it has never been easier to get work out there, and because of writing courses, there has never been so much of it about.  Which means that editors have never been so important (though still quite properly just as invisible).

Maybe this element of 'curation', as the buzz word has it, explains why Ann and I publish so few titles a year - though it's just as much because we're too small an operation to effectively (or even ineffectively) market a lot of books. Also, it takes time to edit a book - to help the poet make it as good as it can be - as true, alive, three-dimensional.  In fact, it can take years sometimes.  Which, paradoxically, is why our poets stay with us instead of moving on to a quicker or bigger outfit - because they value their work being valued, the time and expertise we bring to bear.  Like every other editor, it has to be said, we are particularly brilliant editors.

Some of the best poets on our list have come through our annual book & pamphlet competition.  This is our biggest (only) money-spinner, and keeps the business afloat - but it is also crucial to discovering new talent.  Even winning collections, though chosen by Carol Ann Duffy or Michael Longley or Andrew Motion, get edited by us.  In this way we have come to publish and stay publishing, e.g. Michael Laskey, Yvonne Green, Allison McVety, Paul Mills, Michael McCarthy, Jane Routh, Catherine Smith, Ed Reiss River Wolton, and many others we shouldn't leave off this list.  Our 'core' non-competition poets include Stanley Cook, Geoff Hattersley and Michael Schmidt.

We love pamphlets as well as books, even  more than books maybe, because they are their own animal, and generally the right size for a satisfying read.  Our first pamphlet (1986) was by Simon Armitage, and we have just published another pamphlet by Simon Armitage.

We produce a magazine of poems, features and reviews, called The North, and submitting to this sometimes leads to people doing books or pamphlets with us.  Like every other poetry magazine, incidentally, The North is the best in the country, because of its commitment to the reader as well as to its writers.

We run residential courses, and teach Arvon and Ty Newydd courses.  And for the last twenty-four years we have run a writing day once a month.  There's also our Writing School (an Arts Council initiative for published poets).  And readings too - we organise readings and masterclasses in Sheffield.  And it's true to say that we read a person's work differently if we've met, and especially if we've worked with, them.  It's not favouritism, because poems are actually different, aren't they, if you know their author.  So if you're interested in being published by us, that's worth bearing in mind (though obviously if you're a horrible person your best bet is just to post your work).  Finally, it has to be said that if you're only interested in our courses and publications because you want to be published, that's hopeless too.

Because the bottom line is that publishers publish good poets, and good poets are interested in poetry for its own sake.  It is more natural to write than to read poems, and most poets start off that way - not very much interested in other people's poems, and so writing rubbish.  Equally naturally, good poets do become interested in poetry for its own sake, at which stage an amazing transformation occurs, and they stop writing the kind of rubbish that is unpublishable (but nevertheless often does get published), and instead write the kind of poems that deserve reading.  If you are one of these deserving poets, have a look at our website and get in touch with us.

*

From: Robin Robertson, Cape Poetry

At Cape I look after over fifty authors: largely fiction writers and poets. Regardless of genre, there is a thrill to reading a manuscript and coming across a genuinely new talent. I was astonished and excited when I read Trainspotting, for instance, though I didn't think it was going to sell - all that Edinburgh patois and heroin addiction - but it was certainly something I hadn't ever read before. What I'm looking for is something refreshing, original and powerful: writing that matters profoundly. Reading a genuinely good manuscript provokes, in me at least, a visceral response and editing one, in turn, seems a very instinctive process.

Robin Robertson has worked at Penguin, Secker & Warburg and Jonathan Cape, where he is currently Deputy Publishing Director. He has edited the work of many novelists, including John Banville, J.M. Coetzee, Seamus Deane, Anne Enright, Janice Galloway, Niall Griffiths, James Kelman, A.L. Kennedy, Bernard MacLaverty, Alistair MacLeod, Alan Warner and Irvine Welsh.

The Cape poetry list, at present:

ROBERT BRINGHURST * JOHN BURNSIDE * ANNE CARSON * ROBERT CRAWFORD * MARK DOTY * HELEN FARISH * VICKI FEAVER * LEONTIA FLYNN * ADAM FOULDS * JAMES LASDUN * MICHAEL LONGLEY * THOMAS LYNCH * SHARON OLDS * MICHAEL SYMMONS ROBERTS * NEIL ROLLINSON * JAMES SHEARD * HENRY SHUKMAN * JEAN SPRACKLAND * ADAM THORPE * SAM WILLETTS * JOHN HARTLEY WILLIAMS

in haste, and all the best -          R.

*

From: Neil Astley, Editor, Bloodaxe Books

Dear Michael

I'm sorry, I can't help you with this. I'm working 24/7 from now till February on a new anthology amongst other things and am having to say no to anything else. I hope the feature works out for you.

Best wishes

Neil 

*

From: Stephen Stuart-Smith, Enitharmon Press

Very many thanks for asking me, Michael, but I'm absolutely up to my eyes and will have to pass on this.

Every good wish

Stephen 

*

From: John Donlan, Editor, Brick Books (Canada)

Brick Books is Canada's most respected poetry publisher, 'committed to publishing culturally significant poetry of the highest quality.'  A screener looks at all submissions; each 'possible' is forwarded to a reader for evaluation; and the two editor-publishers choose the seven titles published annually.  As a reader, I look for: skilful use of rhythm and musicality - prosody; vivid imagery; emotional energy; a distinctive voice; and an intelligent and engaging  style. 

Other than our poets being Canadian, quality is our only criterion, so we can gratefully ignore logrolling - or sales - as considerations.  From the writers I've worked with, I'm proudest of Walid Bitar's first book, on realpolitik and displacement, Maps With Moving Parts; Colleen Thibaudeau's selected poems, The Artemisia Book; Metis Marilyn Dumont's A Really Good Brown Girl; and A.F Moritz's fiercely beautiful Mahoning and Song of Fear.

* 

From: Philip Hoy, Waywiser Press

You ask how we choose the poetry collections we publish, and I wish I could offer a list of criteria. It's not like that, of course. Indeed, a bit of me is tempted to respond to your question by echoing whoever it was that said 'I don't know what I'm looking for till I see what I've found.' But while that wouldn't be untrue - it chimes nicely with Wordsworth's notion that a good poet creates the taste by which he or she is judged - it would surely be unhelpful.

It would probably be easiest if I began by saying what we're looking not to find, the sort of thing whose presence would have us reaching for the SAE (if they've troubled to send one) or the shredder (if they haven't). The press's website sets out guidelines for submissions. These are purely procedural (e.g. 'We cannot consider hand-written submissions, so please have everything typed or word-processed, on standard-size white paper') and one might have thought them easy enough to abide by, but any number of people ignore them, and I make no apology for the fact that their submissions rarely make it past first base.

Our guidelines don't stipulate that manuscripts should be checked for spelling, punctuation and grammar, but I sometimes think they should, because the carelessness of some submissions beggars belief. What submitting authors need to understand is that a small press like Waywiser - which receives somewhere between five hundred and six hundred submissions a year, and can only publish 5 or 6 - is looking in the first instance for reasons to reject, not reasons to accept. So, if a submission is disfigured by errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar - I mean disfigured, because an occasional slip is another matter - there is an odds-on chance that it won't detain us for very long.

I realize that rejecting a submission because it fails to comply with our guidelines or is laced with formal mistakes could result in our missing something of real quality. As a publisher, I am haunted by the following story: 'One morning early in 1913, [the Cambridge mathematician G.H. Hardy] found, among the letters on his breakfast table, a large, untidy envelope decorated with Indian stamps. When he opened it, he found sheets of paper by no means fresh, on which, in a non-English holograph, were line by line of symbols. Hardy glanced at them without enthusiasm. He was by this time, at the age of thirty-six, a world famous mathematician: and world famous mathematicians, he had already discovered, are unusually exposed to cranks. He was accustomed to receiving manuscripts from strangers, proving the prophetic wisdom of the Great Pyramid, the revelations of the Elders of Zion, or the cryptograms that Bacon had inserted in the plays of the so-called Shakespeare. So Hardy felt, more than anything, bored. He glanced at the letter, written in halting English, signed by an unknown Indian, asking him to give his opinion of these mathematical discoveries. The script appeared to consist of theorems, most of them wild or fantastic looking … There were no proofs of any kind. Hardy was not only bored but irritated. It seemed like a curious kind of fraud. He put the manuscript aside, and went on with the day's routine [reading the Times, working on his own mathematics, having lunch, playing tennis, etc]. That particular day, though, while the timetable wasn't altered, internally things were not going according to plan. At the back of his mind … the Indian manuscript nagged away. Wild theorems. Theorems such as he had never seen before, nor imagined. A fraud or a genius? … Back in his rooms in Trinity, he had another look at the script. He sent word to [his colleague] Littlewood that they must have a discussion after Hall … Apparently it did not take them long. Before midnight they knew, and knew for certain. The writer of these manuscripts was a man of genius."[1]  Had it not been for Hardy - Hardy and Littlewood - the Indian correspondent might have remained an obscure and poorly paid clerk in Madras. Instead, Srinivasa Ramanujan was brought to England and quickly came to be recognized as a genius worthy of mention in the same breath as Gauss and Euler.

The moral of this story doesn't need pointing. I hope we haven't overlooked any literary Ramanujans, but we don't have the resources altogether to rule it out.

But now I've said something about what we don't want to find, I shall have to say something about what we do want to find, and here I can do no better than to quote Auden, who, shortly before he died, wrote: 'One demands two things of a poem. Firstly, it must be a well-made verbal object that does honour to the language in which it is written. Secondly, it must say something significant about a reality common to us all, but perceived from a unique perspective. What the poet says has never been said before, but, once he has said it, his readers recognize its validity for themselves.'[2]  If you asked me to flesh this out, explaining what makes for a poem's being a 'well-made verbal object' or 'saying something significant', I don't think I could do any better than point you in the direction of the sorts of things we publish, from books by old masters such as Robert Conquest, Anthony Hecht, W.D. Snodgrass, Mark Strand and Richard Wilbur, to those of newcomers such as Morri Creech, Erica Dawson, Carrie Jerrell, Dora Malech and Dan Rifenburgh. Each of these poets knows how to craft a poem - not for any of them the bizarre idea that you can move directly from the aspiration to write poetry to the activity itself - and each of them has learned how to speak like him- or her-self, without at the same time sounding like numberless others.

[1] The story is told by C.P. Snow in his foreword to G.H. Hardy, A Mathematician's Apology (CUP, London, 1973), pp. 30-34.

[2] W.H. Auden, foreword to Joseph Brodsky: Selected Poems (Penguin, London, 1973), p.9.

*

From: Chris Hamilton-Emery, Salt Publishing

Dear Michael,

I'll sort it soonest, thanks for asking.

All best

Chris

*

From: Tony Frazer, Shearsman Press

I have no set criteria, no template into which a book has to fit. Having said which, there are a few pointers. First, the collection needs to be of manageable length, and above all if it is a first collection. Reviewers don't review long books, unless they are editions of collected poems by established poets.

Second, it needs to be more or less in tune with the rest of the list, although it also has to be said that there are disparate strands to what's going on here at Shearsman. Despite a reputation for post-modernism and avant-gardery, I also publish material that seems to me to be solid mainstream work. It's possible that 'mainstream' editors won't see them that way, of course, and that they will think  I am barking up yet another entirely wrong tree.

Third, it needs to excite me in some way, or strike a spark. I've seen a lot of solid, accomplished work that has no spark at all. I've also been very surprised by some material from unexpected sources. In some ways it's invidious to name individual books, but these are some of the surprises that came in from nowhere, so to speak, and bowled me over: M.T.C. Cronin, More or Less Than 1-100 (2004); Nancy Kuhl, The Wife of the Left Hand (2007); Rachel Tzvia Back, On Ruins & Return (2007); Ellen Baxt, Analfabeto / An Alphabet (2007); Brandi Homan, Bobcat Country (2010). These are all by women, and not one is British. That is not deliberate. So let's add Tamara Fulcher's The Recreation of Night (2008). She is British, and hers was another book that came in out of the blue, and really surprised me.

Choosing a book for the list means considering, up to a point, whether it will sell enough to justify its presence -an uncertain science. It means balancing UK and North American authors - there's a practical limit to the number of North American authors I can take on in a year. It means trying to find a way to pay for translations, because I insist on translations being an important part of the list.

I try to encourage women authors to come on board, but it's often a struggle to persuade them to do so, and even more so if the first manuscript to arrive isn't quite what I'm looking for. I've had a couple of very good manuscripts come in as second attempts after the first ones had not been quite acceptable, but I'd like to see more come along like that. I'd also like to see more work coming in from ethnic-minority poets, but I'm not interested in tokenism, which does neither party any favours. It might also be the case that 'ethnic' poets in this country are pushed into a more populist style of writing by market demands, or even by subtle racism against experimental writing by non-white writers. Since I don't like that kind of writing (i.e. the more populist) by white poets, it makes life rather difficult with regard to maintaining some kind of ethnic mix.

Decision-making at the magazine is a bit different. There I take chances on things that might not be chosen for a book, and I will sometimes take on much more experimental work.

*

From: Nicholas Murray, Rack Press

Rack Press, which was founded in 1995, publishes short pamphlets, usually three or four a year, in handsome limited editions.  One of the first poets to be published observed that there was something peculiarly satisfying about poetry in the pamphlet medium - he was speaking, I think, primarily as a reader - and I agree.  Poetry is an art of concentration, and small doses are often highly effective.

It ought to be possible to state one's editorial criteria simply and honestly, but in practice I find it difficult.  It would be far easier if Rack Press occupied some polemical or coterie niche. Then one could point to one's friends, and taunt one's enemies, and celebrate one's glorious position on the field of battle, but actually our policy is quite catholic, and we have published a range of different voices. There are, however, certain common characteristics. I like poems that display a feeling for the craft of poetry. I look, always, for evidence of 'significant form', but also for a flavour of experience, a root in the real. I like poetry which is playful, linguistically adventurous, free to innovate, but I also want it to mean something felt, to connect with life, so I wouldn't publish anything that was merely 'experimental' or posturing, or that lacked vivid and vigorous language and imagery.  I want poems to make me see as well as feel.

Looking back over the first sixteen titles, I regret that there are only four women on the list, and I wish that I had made more 'discoveries' (I am wary of the latter term, which obscures the fact that luck is as important as judgement in publishing, and a good and original writer will actually be the one who 'discovers' us).  I have probabl published too many already established poets, but I am guided by what comes in, and although I am pleased not to have been inundated with trash (on the contrary, the pain has been in having to turn very good work away), I wish that I had been presented with more chances to publish a brand new voice that stormed onto the stage. 

I am particularly pleased to have published Hazel Frew's highly original and inventive poems, and I was delighted when she quickly went on to publish a full-length collection with Shearsman. And Byron Beynon's first pamphlet collection. I have also published Philip Morre's accomplished first collection - or is it?  All these poets have published before in magazines or on poem cards; they have  translated, contributed, collaborated.  They have had - now how shall I put it? - anterior poetic lives.  It was nice to publish Steve Griffiths just at the point when he was emerging from a period of relative silence into a burst of new creativity, and Dai Vaughan, who is perhaps better known as a novelist - not to speak of his distinguished career as a documentary film editor.  And it was gratifying that three poets, David Wheatley, Richard Price, and John Powell Ward, sold out very quickly.

Having not a cent of subsidy or grant, operating in a poetry climate where reviewing is more constrained and limited than I can ever remember it, and where the dice are loaded against small or independent publishers (I won't bore you with our current struggles with Amazon), I am glad that we have, simply, survived.

Finally, Rack is a Welsh press, these poetry pamphlets roll off Welsh printing presses, and half a dozen of the poets on the list are Welsh. But Scottish, Irish and (in translation) French voices have also been heard.  Do come and join our celebration of the first five years at the Presteigne Festival on Sunday 29 August, in the heart of the beautiful Welsh Marches - and also, of course, in our back yard.

*

From: Don Paterson, Picador Poets

Re: Dear M - snowed at the moment, alas, but will try and send something this weekend. Apols in advance if I miss the boat, though!

Yrs aye,

Don

* 

From: Simon Jenner, Waterloo Press

It's easy to say that we like radically good poetry at Waterloo. The work can be mainstream, naïf, modernist, or American formalist. It has to be good of its kind, not just generically acceptable and well-turned. After that the criteria begin to merge with issues of subjectivity. There is a wide malaise in the world of poetry magazines, a hierarchy of names which seems to be sequenced into the DNA of each journal. For us, it is a more interesting exercise to find the poets who no longer submit poetry to such publications, who seem to stand outside this world of public acclaim.

Despite the baleful predictions that the small number of poets covered by the media will enter official history (as they have the syllabuses) and asphyxiate all others, I remain optimistic. Reputations of this kind last only as long as the poets. For poetry to have life beyond all this rubbish, it has to breathe longer than the nicotine-choked lungs of the bruiser-poet or the delicate pulse of the pastel editor who once wielded a quarterly chopper. As for the permanence of recordings and downloads, even permanent media decays with a lack of use. Books of poetry have to survive beyond their brief promotional moment. And I suspect that it is books which lovers of poetry will continue to buy and to savour and to use as readers. The electronic world is for reference, not reflection. But these battles will continue, and the 'marginal' poet will continue to fight to demand his or her presence in printed form. Watch the search engines rising all the same.

*

So there you have it. Oh yes, one more small matter. Here is a list of the ones who didn't reply at all, not even by way of an acknowledgment. I wish I knew why. One thing at least is certain: given that they are poetry editors, and have the future of our words in their care, we can be sure that they have nothing to hide.

Amy Wack - Seren Press; Peter Jay - Anvil Press; Matthew Hollis - Faber & Faber; Peter Fallon - Gallery Books