‘Poetry Editor.’ It wasn’t until Tiggy most generously asked me to take on the role for this issue of page seventeen that I realised how much I missed reading and choosing poetry for a print publication. Working on Egg (Poetry) and holland1945 were different from what I do with kipple, where I read one poem at a time. The amount of submissions that passed through the inbox (or postbox with Egg) were vastly superior.
And reading hundreds of poems from nearly two hundred writers over a few months, is another thing entirely. For one, it gave me an intimate view of a nice chunk of the Australian poetry scene. A healthy scene I might add. I also had the thrill of reading work from writers I hadn’t had read for years, people who’d made the other publications I’d been involved with so much better.
Afterwards, I realised I wanted to get some thoughts down on the editing process, and so here they are, hopefully they turn out to be of some use. As a writer, I understand how mysterious it can be, what goes on with editors when they have your work. And I’ve noticed more than a few editors making their selection process more transparent, and I think it’s a smart idea because editors deserve more credit, but also because it may help writers.
For me, editing poetry for a journal is usually split into two broad halves, selection and alteration. Both sides of the role are enjoyable, though I find that selection can be as heartbreaking as it is exciting and that’s what I want to talk about now.
In particular, it’s a tough job when a large amount of submissions fall into the ‘maybe’ pile, leaving only a small percentage of poems to be placed under the ‘yes’ heading immediately. Those that are put into the immediate ‘no’ pile can be the easy part. They are at times too wordy, too slight, too long or even too ‘soap-opera.’ Sometimes they are even missing words or letters from words – so on one hand it’s easy to pass on these poems. What’s difficult is that with hundreds of submissions, it’s not easy to find the time to tell a writer which one of these (at times) minor issues could be the reason a poem does not make a shortlist.
Proofing a poem only takes a few minutes and could mean all the difference – and I wish I could have said this or something similar to many writers who sent page seventeen work for issue eight. Instead, I spent the bulk of my time on the ‘maybe’ pile. And it was big. I was thrilled to have too much good work – it made me really happy. Sending so much of that great work back did not. But a journal is bound by its pages – and no publication has an infinite amount. Space is a consideration. And when two, three, four or more poems must compete for a single space, it comes down to slight but important differences in quality.
For issue eight I made such difficult decisions based on the following criteria (in no particular order):
1) Is there already another poem which deals with this theme/concern/image etc in the issue/is this poem too similar in tone or structure to another poem?
2) Would the tone or content of the entire issue become unbalanced if this poem were to be included?
3) Which poem takes more risk in its delivery, word choice or structure etc?
4) Which poem communicates best?
5) Which poem do I think people will want to read more than once?
These are questions that come to mind at all times during a reading period, but especially when it’s down to a number of great poems vying for one page. And some of those criteria are subjective ones, but that is to be expected. Art is subjective, that’s why it’s fun, difficult and ultimately worthwhile. Many of the shortlisted poems that missed out, missed out due to one or two of the criteria above. And I did my best to inform those writers of that, because I feel it’s important to know why a piece was sent back. A rejection on those grounds isn’t a rejection of the poem itself, rather, it’s more a rejection of that particular poem at that particular time and in the context of that particular journal’s current issue.
Looking back over the poetry, and talking to the short story editors, I’m convinced that this issue will be one of the best. I’ve certainly been blessed by the work our poets sent for number eight, and so I’d like to thank them again.
Ashley Capes