Hi Roy. That's a fine list of acknowledgments. I'm looking forward to reading the collection. I'm totally with you re not sending to the journals whose content doesn't large appeal, and even more so re the right-wing political ones - much as I like Hugo Williams as a poet and as a person, I'd never send anything to The Spectator. It's edited by Gove and used to be edited by Johnson FFS, and I gather that it's platformed all manner of far-right 'thinkers' and 'influencers' in recent times. I guess some poets argue that getting their work in places where poetry only has a toehold is a more important consideration but that doesn't sit well with me - for me it's about the company you keep. All the best, Matthew
Fascinating! This strikes me as quite a high proportion of poems having appeared somewhere already. In your experience do editors have a preference about that or feel that there’s any upper limit?
If I understand the question correctly, you are asking me about what book editors/ publishers prefer?
I imagine all poetry publishers/ Editors like to see evidence of their poets being published in magazines. As I understand it, a 'track record' of publication may help an editor/ publisher to decide if they wish to publish a poet, and the more poems out there, preferably in 'quality' magazines, the merrier. So poems in magazines are a good way to showcase your work.
My own publisher/ Ed (John Lucas of Shoestring press, now in his late 80's and not an internet user! ) is probably a bit unusual in that I don't think it is a vitally important factor for him how many poems have been previously published. If he likes a collection, he will publish it. John saw my work in a pamphlet, and offered to publish a book. This is not the usual way things work- normally the poet approaches the publisher, not the other way round.
I enjoy the process of sending out poems, even if they come back, and have very much enjoyed receiving contributor copies and occasionally going to launches (in person and online) over the years, where I have met and listened to other poets and sometimes met magazine eds. It is all part of the fun for me.
Thanks. Yes I was wondering in particular about the upper limit, because I’ve heard some poets talk about making sure they keep some poems unpublished so that they appear first in the book. Have you experienced an editor wanting to be sure there’s some « new » material or do you think it doesn’t matter? I imagine patterns of magazine publication might make a difference too — you have quite varied venues (and presumably audiences) there, maybe it would be different if they’d all been published in just two or three places?
Hello again, thanks for the question. I can only speak from my experience, which is that my publisher really has no upper limit and neither do I. Personally I would ideally like to have had everything published in magazines as I would like people to read my poems, and if they like one poem they might check out the book when it arrives. Being with a small indy publisher means it will be unlikely that my book will be on lists (my first one was listed for a National award - a mighty surprise!) or in bookshops (except the odd independent or specialist poetry stockist- few and far between) . So I see magazine publication as a (pleasurable) duty, as I need to try and get exposure/ traction. Whether this is achievable or not depends on many factors such as submission rates - finding time and the ‘right places’ to submit- leaving a good gap between trying the same eds. the timeframes involved (years). My only rule is I have to like the magazine and the editorial vibes. Prestige/ popularity/ are not factors.
Thanks. This makes sense to me -- even if you are a big fan of a particular poet and actually *have* read most of the poems in a collection at one time or another, there's still obvious value in having them all together. And it's hard to imagine there are many such dedicated and deep-pocketed readers pursuing poets around all the small magazines and online journals. I suppose perhaps at the very rare (and perhaps now non-existent) Seamus Heaney-esque level of fame, there might be some value for the publisher in being able to say "includes 20 new poems" or whatever, but in any other context your comment seems right. Thanks again!
Exactly. The only instance I can think of where I might by a collection on the basis of there being 'new previously unpublished poems' would be a collected or selected by someone I admire, possibly deceased.
Really intrigued by this list & grateful to you for sharing.
Thank you Olivia.
Hi Roy. That's a fine list of acknowledgments. I'm looking forward to reading the collection. I'm totally with you re not sending to the journals whose content doesn't large appeal, and even more so re the right-wing political ones - much as I like Hugo Williams as a poet and as a person, I'd never send anything to The Spectator. It's edited by Gove and used to be edited by Johnson FFS, and I gather that it's platformed all manner of far-right 'thinkers' and 'influencers' in recent times. I guess some poets argue that getting their work in places where poetry only has a toehold is a more important consideration but that doesn't sit well with me - for me it's about the company you keep. All the best, Matthew
Thanks Matthew. Yes, that publication you mention was the one I was thinking of.
Also The Telegraph.
Fascinating! This strikes me as quite a high proportion of poems having appeared somewhere already. In your experience do editors have a preference about that or feel that there’s any upper limit?
Thank you Victoria, glad you enjoyed reading.
If I understand the question correctly, you are asking me about what book editors/ publishers prefer?
I imagine all poetry publishers/ Editors like to see evidence of their poets being published in magazines. As I understand it, a 'track record' of publication may help an editor/ publisher to decide if they wish to publish a poet, and the more poems out there, preferably in 'quality' magazines, the merrier. So poems in magazines are a good way to showcase your work.
My own publisher/ Ed (John Lucas of Shoestring press, now in his late 80's and not an internet user! ) is probably a bit unusual in that I don't think it is a vitally important factor for him how many poems have been previously published. If he likes a collection, he will publish it. John saw my work in a pamphlet, and offered to publish a book. This is not the usual way things work- normally the poet approaches the publisher, not the other way round.
I enjoy the process of sending out poems, even if they come back, and have very much enjoyed receiving contributor copies and occasionally going to launches (in person and online) over the years, where I have met and listened to other poets and sometimes met magazine eds. It is all part of the fun for me.
Thanks. Yes I was wondering in particular about the upper limit, because I’ve heard some poets talk about making sure they keep some poems unpublished so that they appear first in the book. Have you experienced an editor wanting to be sure there’s some « new » material or do you think it doesn’t matter? I imagine patterns of magazine publication might make a difference too — you have quite varied venues (and presumably audiences) there, maybe it would be different if they’d all been published in just two or three places?
Hello again, thanks for the question. I can only speak from my experience, which is that my publisher really has no upper limit and neither do I. Personally I would ideally like to have had everything published in magazines as I would like people to read my poems, and if they like one poem they might check out the book when it arrives. Being with a small indy publisher means it will be unlikely that my book will be on lists (my first one was listed for a National award - a mighty surprise!) or in bookshops (except the odd independent or specialist poetry stockist- few and far between) . So I see magazine publication as a (pleasurable) duty, as I need to try and get exposure/ traction. Whether this is achievable or not depends on many factors such as submission rates - finding time and the ‘right places’ to submit- leaving a good gap between trying the same eds. the timeframes involved (years). My only rule is I have to like the magazine and the editorial vibes. Prestige/ popularity/ are not factors.
Thanks. This makes sense to me -- even if you are a big fan of a particular poet and actually *have* read most of the poems in a collection at one time or another, there's still obvious value in having them all together. And it's hard to imagine there are many such dedicated and deep-pocketed readers pursuing poets around all the small magazines and online journals. I suppose perhaps at the very rare (and perhaps now non-existent) Seamus Heaney-esque level of fame, there might be some value for the publisher in being able to say "includes 20 new poems" or whatever, but in any other context your comment seems right. Thanks again!
Exactly. The only instance I can think of where I might by a collection on the basis of there being 'new previously unpublished poems' would be a collected or selected by someone I admire, possibly deceased.