Collection! / #1

Whilst we are waiting for the Pamphlet Wheels to gain momentum on the October Hype Train (where the fuck did that metaphor even come from ^^) I am in the process of helping out a couple of poetry mates. One has a collection that will be published Soon [TM] whist the other has a collection (like me) looking for a home in one of the current submission windows.

We're going to focus first on the latter, not simply because it is fresh in my memory, but because it has granted me an opportunity to think critically about my own work. When you spend an inordinate amount of time living between your own lines, it can become very claustrophobic indeed. This collection is in three very distinctive parts, and the sum of the whole is extremely tightly paced.

It was, on first read, a bit of a revelation.

It would be really easy to shove 45-60 poems together in the order you wrote them and claim that it is a legitimate sequence based simply on the date they were written, and I've done that before with a pamphlet or two. The reality of even holding a hope that you can be published 'formally' will depend on SO many factors, it is often impossible to work out which ones really matter.

The closer one gets to the apex of a profession, the easier it becomes to separate truth from stupidity. There are some absolute intractables when you do, and many of them are neither fair nor pretty. However, what remains a given is that if you come to the table with a totally unique voice, approach or outlook (but preferably all three), someone will eventually seek you out.

Individuality matters more now than it has ever done before.

This collection is very much a combination of multiple spaces simultaneously: a poet who considers themselves 'old' when their approach to the business of world events and the importance of authenticity within them is very much in the centre of a perpetual storm. I have met them in person a few times now, and it's apparent this person has the ability to straddle several worlds simultaneously.

The whole was also hugely compelling, and thought provoking, hitting all the targets I'd look for in terms of originality, motive and intent. Its only real fault was an occasional lack of narrative consistency. What do I mean by that? In a collection where it is possible to follow a poet through their work, every piece of work needs a justification for existing where it does.

In places, that journey either was confusing or lost its cohesion.

The fix is stupidly easy: context. Sometimes that means a re-ordering of the work, often it means expanding the pieces which don't hang as well inside the pages as others. This ultimately, should fall to a good editor to undertake, but in the modern world of poetry books I have not heard good things about how this works. More and more, the writer is expected to do all of the heavy lifting.

Knowing this, it has never been as important as it is now to ensure your work is as close to perfect in your own mind as it can be. It is also the moment to seek out your poetry mates and to ask them to read what you have written. This is where you also, like it or not, work out exactly who your poetry mates really are. If you’re lucky enough to have friends who’ll read as non-poets, this is also a bonus.

The more people you can garner realistic feedback from the better.

I have sent my comments to the poet, and now I wait to see if they have been helpful or not. It would be so much easier for everyone if publishers were more precise and open about their motivations for wanting to publish work, but that train I suspect sailed a long time ago. Even when you give the best you are capable of producing, it is entirely possible it simply won’t be enough.

This is the reality of publishing as it currently exists.