Buy this book (please). No, really. I mean it.

I would prefer to give books away.

However, yesterday at the StAnza bookfair, I did my best to sell as many copies of How (Not) to Get Your Poetry Published as humanly possible. I told a number of poets they ‘ought’ to read it. What a presumption!

But it’s like this: poets ask things.Cover of How Not to, bright yellow, featuring anguished poet graphic and title in dark blue and red

They ask things like ‘what did you think of the recent publication by xxxx’? Or they ask, ‘I’m thinking of approaching xxxx. What do you think?’ Or, most worryingly of all, ‘I wonder if I might send you some of my poems?’

‘You need to read this book,’ I say. ‘It’s only taken eleven years to be able to write it, and it might save you a lot of time.’ It’s not the same as the pamphlet publication that preceded it, many copies of which I used to send (free) to poets who sent me their poems and didn’t know what they hadn’t done, but should have done, first.

I hate the way life is full of secret rules. You only find out later what you should have known to start with. To make it worse: some people seem to know these rules. Who told them?

I must get back to poetry, which is so very much more important, but I hope this book will do two things.

1. It will make some money to spend on publishing some poetry.

2.It will share the secret rules which you may, of course, learn eventually, but only after considerable pain. Save the pain.

It’s not just for new poets. Sometimes those who have one, or more than one, collection already in print have even more cause to read it. You don’t know what you don’t know.

The poetry publishing thing stirs up all sorts of emotions, and adjectives start flying in private conversations: unfair, unjust, unbalanced, nepotism, power, corruption, Private Eye. Please deliver us from temptation. Let us not mention funding. Let us not mention gate keepers. Read the book. It is funny in places, which is as it should be. Poetry is a serious matter, but poets should not take themselves too seriously.

I could say more, but today I’m going to StAnza to be on a panel discussing small magazines in the context of one of the best longstanding publications, Gerry Cambridge’s The Dark Horse, with Dana Gioa streamed in virtually from the States.

So no more from me today. Instead, here’s the link to what I wrote about StAnza in 2012. It still sums it up.

http://www.happenstancepress.org/index.php/blog/entry/instead-i-am-going-to-stanza

This is a poster/banner for The Dark Horse magazine, feating a giant horse looking round four covers of back issues, one on top of the next. You see the characteristic design of the magazine, and there's a big quote from the late Dennis O'Driscoll bottom left saying 'among the trully outstanding poetry mgazines of the English-speaking world'

Relationships? It’s complicated.

My grandmother had a fairly close relationship with a piano. I have an intimate relationship with an Imac.

It is possible, perhaps even probable, to love a machine. I’m sure my computer has altered the way I think. Not necessarily for the worse. Just another tool, or instrument, like the washing machine or piano.

You know this is true when the machine dies, as it did for me this week. My own fault. I decided to install a new operating system: it wasn’t expensive. From what I read online, it wasn’t complicated or risky.

Except it was, and I should have known. It wasn’t a terrible disaster, or anything. I only lost about two hours’ worth of work. Fifteen years of production and human interaction was saved on a back-up drive and re-installed on a new machine, and I do like new machines. They smell so lovely, and are wondrous in their magical ability to do all sorts of things.

But the effect it has on the brain is weird. To begin with, I was almost nonchalant about it all. That was because I was in shock. Then I went back to my very old laptop and managed to do a little of the work I needed to do, and (because with HappenStance time is of the essence) bought a new Imac. I used a credit card and the Bank of Scotland fraud people phoned me to check I wasn’t a thief, which shows how long it is since I bought anything on credit.

Then four days with no computer, during which time I realised how much of my life was sitting waiting inside the little black external hard drive on my desk. Perhaps it’s possible to save too much. Perhaps we should let more go.

Then the new machine came and I began to discover which recovered programs wouldn’t work properly and why. Back to trawling through online discussion groups, always a mixture of horror and fascination for me. Fascination because of the wonder that all these people are there all the time swapping stories and information and helpful ideas. Horror because each one, at some point, tips into terminology that’s a foreign language.

However, I did work my way through a set of suggestions to make Creative Suite work again, after one of its files was corrupted in the hand-over, and something must have worked because the programs are now accessible again. Microsoft Office was more complicated. Apparently I am the only person in the UK to have purchased a year’s supply of software for one machine as a one-off purchase, and then (during this week’s crisis) software for another on a monthly payment basis. The technology wouldn’t install, and so I became implicated with online chat, and phone calls. I online-chatted my way, with different people, in different organisations, through:

  • Microsoft Office not downloading
  • an email address that wouldn’t work
  • I-photo that was there but couldn’t be located.

The online chats and phone calls on Friday lasted till 11.30pm. I was chatting with someone in Jamaica, then someone in the Philippines, and then I think someone in Ireland, though he could just have had an Irish accent.

How astonishing it is that these great conglomerate organisations offer this kind of assistance! I know it’s all in the name of making money out of us – but still. The guys who help (and phone calls became involved too) are kind and charming and intelligent and global. Something humbling about that. And they’re not full of nasty hype. During one phone call, I apologised for being stupid (this stuff does make you feel stupid, and slow). My helpmeet said that on the scale of stupid, in these kind of phone calls, I did not rate very high.

The process of changing all the information, vast swathes of my thinking over the last fifteen years, from one machine to another, involved flashing lights and clicking, and soft, reassuring little engine noises. Most efficient. The new machine is humming softly now in the background. Tiny clicks, familiar as my own heartbeat. The keyboard is soft and new, and the letter M is visible again. The printer is producing documents that look a little different, but it is talking to the Imac, and they’ll learn to get on.

But I have a funny sensation somewhere in my head, a slight disorientation. I feel as though I’ve been poured from one body into another and the world has been re-set. I feel as though I’ve been reprocessed. Re-incarnated, even. It is extremely strange.

ps On Friday afternoon, the door of the washing machine broke. This will be fixed on Tuesday. It hasn’t interrupted my concentration at all.

Picture of a 21-inch current model Imac, showing desktop picture of spectaluar mountains with sun highlighting the top peaks (orange) and deep black rock shooting down below And a beautiful sky of course.

WORKING WITH THE WORLD’S WORST AUTHOR

The yellow book has gone to print. I’m not sure how it got there and I want to get it back.

The yellow book is, of course, How (Not) to Get Your Poetry Published, the book that has obsessed nearly every waking hour between Christmas and now. There’s a chapter of ‘What ifs’, and here’s one of them:

What if you’ve enraged your publisher by trying to change aspects of the collection, including rewriting some of the poems, sixteen times between first offer and printing?

Try not to do this. Relationships are important, and there is a time to let go. If you want to rewrite poems at the last minute, do it later and make a feature of it. Publish a volume titled The B side: rewrites of A. Better still, write some new ones.

What good advice. I shouldn’t have written ‘Try not to do this’, though. I should have written: ‘DO NOT DO THIS!’ Few things are more difficult for a publisher or editor than a writer who keeps rewriting the text. But what if that writer is yourself?

Which it was. Every time I re-proofed that book for the tiny slips of this and that, finding new ones each time, I would see a sentence that could be expressed better, or a chapter heading that felt wrong, or a bit where I was repeating myself (there may still be some of those) or – worst of all – the very morning I was due to send the book to print I decided , at 7.00 a.m., to re-design some of the pages.

These are things you should never ever do. The more changes you make at the last minute, the more likely you are to incorporate errors.

It wasn’t even me but my brother-in-law who observed the mistake on the spine of the book. It read ‘How (Not) To Get Your Oetry Published’. My daughter thought it was a deliberate joke. Beware you poets out there! The HappenStance editor generates Oetry without even trying. One day that oetry could be part of your oevre.

When you yourself are author and editor, and you can make changes, the temptation is overwhelming. I talk quite a bit in How (Not) to about self-publishing but nowhere do I mention this awful downside: the business of letting go. How do you let go of a book you’re producing yourself? How are you sure it’s good enough, finished enough, comprehensive enough, accurate enough, yellow enough?

I wish I didn’t mind making mistakes. I really wanted to get another bound proof. But if I had, I would have had to read the whole book word by word again, and I didn’t think I could bear it. I’ve read it backwards. I’ve read it forwards several times. I’ve read it inside out. At one point I was pleased with it. Now I really don’t know what I think of it any more (this is not what it will say in the publicity blurb which claims it is ‘frank and funny’ and ‘tells you all you need to know about getting your oetry published’).

I know I did one formatting thing in a stupid way. But I realised too late. It came to me in the middle of the night (when I was not sleeping because I was thinking about the yellow book again) what I should have done. I hope I got away with the wrong method. I hope people like this book.

I can always do a revised edition.

And a new and revised edition.

And a second new and revised edition.

Let the book go, Nell. Let the book go.

 

Jacket of book -- bright yellow with a cartoon lady tearing her hair on the cover, and the title in large print, red and blue.

 

 

On Finalising the Book

Should anyone (I know it’s unlikely) wonder where the blog has gone, it has gone into a chapter about blogging and taken my brain with it.

How (Not) to Get Your Poetry Published is very nearly done. We are on the cusp of finalising.

I am currently poring over a chapter of ‘What ifs’ which will be some of the questions that nobody seems to answer. If you think of any ‘What ifs’ about getting poetry published, share them now please and I may be able to throw them in.

Soon I may have some ordinary brain space left again to write something else. It’s slightly alarming to find that the writing exercises in the book (it’s not just about getting published, you know) have made me go and write poems when I should have been doing proper work. Honestly! What on earth do I think I’m doing here?

 

 

On Writing The Book

So I’m half-way through How (Not) To Get Your Poetry Published, the new, enlarged, revised, authorised, homogenised edition containing the Answer To It All.

What gets me about self-help books is the knowing tone. So I’m trying my best not to write in a knowing tone. But the knowing tone keeps getting in.

Poetry publishing has obsessed me now for over a decade. I know some things about it, but I still don’t want a knowing tone. I want a questioning tone, a raise-one-eyebrow tone, at the same time as some of useful facts and some ideas. A bit of ‘you need to know this’ and a bit of ‘have you thought about that?’

And it’s got to be funny some of the time. If you don’t have a sense of humour when it comes to getting stuff published, it can only end in tears. Or as Roberto Calasso says in The Art of the Publisher: ‘. . . if our life as a publisher fails to offer sufficient opportunities for laughter, this means it’s just not serious enough.’ This applies just as much to poets.

But I’m finding I can’t bear too many pages about how to prepare, how to make your approach, how to develop a strategy etc. It gets so far away from the joy of writing. Periodically I have to leap out of this book and go and look at something real, like a blob of mud in the back garden or the light reflected in the lenses of my glasses.

So I’m working some reading/writing stimuli into this book – optional, of course – to cheer people up as they go through. If anybody reads it, that is.

If you are reading this now and you think you might, one day, read this book titled How (Not) to Get Your Poetry Published) and there’s something you’d particularly like covered in this hypothetical book, could you let me know what it is? You can use the comments section at the bottom of this page or the contact box on the website if your idea’s more private.

What have I got so far? Good question.

Apart from the enjoyable bits (the reading/writing pages) and the case studies (what not to do), this is what I have, but not in this order. (One of the points below is a lie: it’s not in the book at all.)

— motivation (fourteen reasons why)

— understanding the publishing process

— thinking like a publisher (but try not to on a Sunday, it’s very wearing)

— researching a publisher

— choosing the right publisher for you (if there is one!)

— how to make your approach (swinging the odds in your favour)

— thinking outside the box

— DIY publishing

— how people get books published, other people!

— how to gauge whether you’re ready

— track record in magazines

— why you have to use the web

— how to win the National Poetry Competition

— social networking for poets

— thinking about poems in sets: what makes a collection work?

— how to build a readership

Ideas welcome please as soon as you can manage them. But no knowing tones, towing groans or flowing moans, right? Things are bad enough already in the head of Nell.

The graphic shows a little girl or small female. It's a cartoon depiction. She could be little red riding hood. Her mouth is open wide with all her teeth showing and a bird on strings seems to be escaping from it. Three butterflies, also on strings, seem to be escaping from her back. Her arms are stretched out for help and her feet are on backwards.

Ten Reasons for NOT reading today’s HappenStance blog

1. Because you could read Fiona Moore’s blog instead.

2. Because I considered the topic of rejection but here’s Jeff Shotts on The Art of Rejection and he’s done it better.

3. Because you’ve read enough blogs for one day.

4. Because these sort of lists are hardly original.

5. (You don’t need to read the rest of my reasons. Anyway, there are only ten because the entries that list ‘ten of’ get more hits

6. which is why I’m thinking of stopping at five)

7. or maybe extending it to six in order to say I’m rewriting How (Not) to Get Your Poetry Published and I’m up to the chapter headed ‘Should poets blog’ which ends ‘or you could go and write a poem instead’. (This book is killing me.)

8. Because you could go and write a poem instead.

9. Because there are only nine. Pay some attention to the nine muses, especially Euterpe. I’m simply an interruption.

TEN REASONS FOR CLICKING ON STANZA

By which of course I mean the link for the StAnza poetry festival at stanzapoetry.org

And no I don’t just mean to buy ten tickets for events at this year’s festival.Scan of front of StAnza festival flyer, showing a photo of the Byre theatre in an arty format, with various bits of poetic text floating around on the windows and so on. The colours are sky blue, grey and white, which are the festival's usual theme colours

But booking tickets could be reason number one. This year it’s 2-6 March, which is hardly any time away at all. But it’s still the ‘early bird’ window, so prices are cheaper right now and I saved £15.40 by forking out somewhat more than this. (I live in Fife, about 22 miles from St Andrews, where the festival is held, so this is my local poetry event.)

Two: maybe you’re thinking about going but haven’t made your mind up yet. You can read a little about each of this year’s performers. Should you bother, shouldn’t you? Take a look. They’re in alphabetical order with a link. Neat. Most of the workshops are already sold out. Yikes.

Three: maybe you will get some tickets then. You can browse events day by day, and the titles link to a page with more info, which in turns links to the Byre Theatre booking facility. You can add to your basket bit by bit. The Byre website doesn’t work as well as the StAnza website, in that you have to scroll through the whole festival to get to your event each time. But the Stanza end is brilliant and I don’t think I’ve booked any events that conflict with each other this time. In fact, oh wow, oh wow, they’ve got a new thing: a matrix of events so you can see at a glance what’s on and when, including clashes.

Four: So you’re going (skip to point five if this is not you). Perhaps you want to play the game of Spot the Poet as you wander round the streets of historic St Andrews. You can go to the Flickr gallery and browse some beautiful photos of participants.

Five: But maybe you can’t go. You can still spend a long time on this website, which has just morphed into a whole new look. You could take a look at the Poetry Map, for example, Scotland mapped out in poems about its places. Such a fun idea!

Six: would you like a taste of digital slam? Scrolling through past pages of the blog, you can (among other things) read about Stephen Watt, who was the 2014 Digital Slam winner. Digital what? No Watt. There’s a link a video of his winning performance. Just lovely. The blog also has a lovely section of podcasts from past events. You can stay on this site all day.

Seven: Sometimes the whole business of arts festivals seems remote and clever. A mystery that it happens at all. But you can see the people behind it: who they are and how it works. The whole story of how a festival grows, in fact, and how it’s put together year by year.

Eight: Want to read at a festival? How do the people on the programme get on the programme? StAnza has a great page telling you some of the background, including what sort of track record you might need, how to offer yourself as a performer, and when.

Nine: Curious about other poets, and who has read at StAnza and when? You can explore past festivals, including all the performers who have ever popped up on the programme, when and in what capacity. This has often been useful to me when reading up about a particular poet. As one does.

Ten: There’s all sorts of bits and pieces of additional interest. Articles and reviews about past festivals. A little specially commissioned video by Daniel Warren about StAnza 2012 – on the home page, just scroll right down and you’ll see the picture of cheeses. Click on it and before you know it, you’re at Leuchars Station. I’ll meet you there.

 

 

ON WRITING TOO MUCH

‘People shouldn’t write so many poems,’ said one of the publishers.

It was at the Ledbury Festival and it was a panel event well over a decade ago. One of the issues under discussion was the quantity of poetry produced relative to the publishing outlets available. But what I remember most is Michael Mackmin’s immediate response to that statement. ‘Yes, they should,’ he said with feeling. ‘They should write as many poems as they want!’

And I agree. Even though I sigh when poets approach me with their work and tell me they’ve written over 400 poems in the last three months. But that’s not because I think they shouldn’t. It’s because more is not better, and I’m biassed in favour of slow work.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me the act of writing is a wonderful thing, an almost holy thing. It is completely separate from the issue of publication, which is far less holy (though sometimes lovely).

It’s a communication, isn’t it, writing? And mysteriously and marvellously, its act of communication can continue after the writer is gone.

I’m working at the moment on the pieces of writing my mother left after her death, collecting them as a set. Mostly they’re stories and anecdotes, based on memory. Her brain, because of her illness, had become like a bucket with a hole in it. As fast as she filled it with stories, her ability to remember trickled out of the bottom. At first the hole was tiny and the loss was imperceptible. Then it got bigger, and bigger.

But for more than ten years, she was a member of a writing group, and this encouraged her to keep putting things down. Each week the group met, and each person read out something he or she had written during the week. To begin with, she loved this. As time went on, she used to moan and groan. ‘What on earth can I write about this week?’

There was always something. Some scrap of the past could be brought along. Some amusing thing would happen and it could be shared, and it was – with triumph and delight.

In this way, parts of her life were described for an audience, and saved. Her illness advanced, and even when her memory betrayed her utterly, those stories and rhymes could be read back to her, to her delight (‘Did I really write that?’). For family and carers, it was a way to learn things about her (and sometimes ourselves) that we would never otherwise have known.

My mother loved to write. All her life she loved it, and it was good for her. Sometimes people criticise the idea that poetry may be ‘mere’ therapy. What nonsense! Of course it’s therapeutic. All writing is.

It was important for my mother to put things into words that other people would understand, and in so doing make them clearer. Because writing does that: it clarifies.

I think of it like clarifying butter in a saucepan, where you heat the butter gently until the fat and the whey separate and the clear gold rises to the top and the milk solids sink to the bottom. But if you get over-excited and apply too much heat, the milk solids start to burn and the whole process falls apart.

Careful writing clarifies. Helps you see things. It’s a beautiful thing.

In Stephen King’s book On Writing, he says ‘Do not come lightly to the blank page’. Another way, I think, of remarking on the holiness of the act. And though I agree that the writer should not come lightly to the task, writing imparts lightness to the writer and, when the clarification process works, light to the reader.

Even here. Even in a blog, of which people write too many, too lightly.

But they should write as many as they want.

 

The image is a small saucepan full of melted butter, which is starting to separate. Someone is holding a metal spoon in the butter liquid, carefully.

READING WINDOW: WHAT ON EARTH IS IT ALL ABOUT?

Why do I do it?

In the last month I read well over 700 poems, and gave detailed feedback on at least 500. By December 31st, I felt as though I’d trudged through several miles of snow and ice. Poetried out? Absolutely.

It doesn’t make sense, in that month of parcels, cards and reindeer, to invite all these poems in. But when was I ever truly sensible? And what month would be better?

I am aware of giving out mixed messages about submissions. I both welcome poems and, at the same time, suggest I’m hardly likely to offer to publish any of the work that arrives. This is true. I am hoping to read the poems, take an interest, find or rediscover some interesting people, and also not offer to publish any of it.

Why? Because I permanently have too many publications on the go. Because I’d really like to write some poems myself.

But obviously I do continue to publish pamphlets, and a small number of books. I continue to take an interest in what does get published, and by whom. I continue to want HappenStance publications to be the best.

So I when reading the poems, I have half an eye on a possible future prospect, at the same time as thinking: no, no, you have too much already!

I hate the whole business of Many are Called but Few are Chosen. I hate the idea of poetry as a gigantic competition. I hate that people get up their hopes, tick all my boxes, and still I don’t say Yes, I love your work, let’s do it.

I’m far more likely to say, I think you’re using too many semi-colons or Why are so many of your poems in two-line stanzas? I don’t even like being the sort of person who says these sorts of things.

I am a people-person. I comfort myself in various ways. One of these is to read the poems properly, or try to. I give feedback, in pencil, on the work. Sometimes, I know, such feedback is useful. Sometimes, over time, people who have valued such responses have gone on either to win pamphlet competitions or to be published by other worthy imprints.

At other times, people feel rejected whatever I do. And there are people whose work I would never publish, although I rarely say that explicitly. But one of the privileges of any publisher is to choose whom and what they publish. I need to feel strongly interested both in the work and the person behind it. I need to feel I can get on well with them, that the relationship would be mutually enjoyable and educative. Why else would one publish poetry at all?

So I read covering letters carefully too, and if someone sends poems to me over two or three years, I start to have a sense of that individual in a context. I keep brief notes. And sometimes I can offer some suggestions about how a set of poems might get published (assuming I don’t offer to do this myself) or even some ideas about new ways the author might write or structure a set of poems. I’d like to think it’s not so much about ‘yes/no’ as about multiple possibilities of each person arriving at what’s best for them. If the work is good, ultimately it will be published somewhere. It’s a matter of persistence, compromise and intelligence.

When it comes to offering to publish, I have a subscriber base, too, to consider. Most (but not all) of the people who send me poems are HappenStance subscribers, so they will already know the key role of the subscribers in terms of decisions and preferences. When I do choose to publish, I want the work to be something I can warmly recommend to those subscriber-readers who regularly send feedback about my publications. The HappenStance subscribers are a human network based on a relationship, not just people to sell things to. They are almost all poets. They send me letters and emails and cards and jokes. They are discriminating, good readers and I want to keep them. In order to do that, I need to publish work they’ll find compelling and worthy of respect. They’re far more important to me than the Forward Prize selectors.

Unofficially, I am studying the state of contemporary UK poetry, and the poetry publishing business. I’m studying it through its participants. Mainly I study participants at the relatively early stages of the game. Such people will tell me what they’ve already tried, how and why. So those people who send me poems are unwitting contributors to my research. I like to know about them. I like to know what they write, how they write, and why (especially why); where they think it’s taking them; why they approached me in the first place. I’ve been doing this for ten years now. I want to work out what’s going on. No, I have no aspirations to undertake a PhD in poetic practice. I’m simply trying to understand a public situation which often seems to make little sense.

Cynicism is something to contend with, yes. More often than you might think, however, I meet a poem that lights up this whole room. For a moment I glimpse what it’s all about, for all of us.

Then January takes over, the lights dim, and it’s time to tackle the accounts.