ASKING FOR HELP

I sent my collection to four trusted readers: Greg Freeman, Stephen Claughton, John Wheeler, and Cheryl McLennon. The instructions were vague: read the poems and let me know if you have any comments.

It was one of the best decisions I made. It was expecting far too much from each person to read all 102 poems and provide detailed feedback, so I’ll have to do the difficult bit myself. I became someone else. I had to wear different hats to look at a problem to ask what sort of hard questions they would demand of each poem:
Wearing the curator’s hat. Does it earn its place in the collection? A poem that works on its own may still be deadweight in a collection. Ask whether it adds something the other poems do not: a different tone, a different angle, a necessary pause or acceleration. If you could remove it and nothing would be lost, it probably should go.
Wearing the architect’s hat. Does its form work? (Short answer: no. Loose free verse became poems in three-line tercets.) Form is not decoration. It is an argument about how the content should be experienced. Free verse can feel like a default rather than a decision. Ask whether the shape of the poem on the page is working for or against what the poem is trying to do.
Wearing the navigator’s hat. Is there a turn, a moment where something shifts? This is sometimes called the volta. It does not have to be dramatic, but something needs to change: the speaker’s understanding, the emotional register, the angle of vision. A poem without a turn is usually just a description. The turn is where the poem becomes a poem.
Wearing the carpenter’s hat. Do the lines and stanzas end in the right place? The end of a line is the most powerful position in a poem. It creates a small moment of suspension before the reader moves on. Look at what word is sitting at the end of each line and ask whether it deserves that emphasis. The same goes for stanza breaks, which are like a longer breath, a chance to let something land before moving forward.
Wearing the critic’s hat. Is the poem unclear? Is it interesting? These are two separate questions and both matter. A poem can be perfectly clear and completely inert. It can also be interestingly strange but so obscure it locks the reader out. You are looking for the productive middle ground: a poem that rewards attention without demanding decoding.
Wearing the doorman’s hat. Does the ending explain what the poem already showed rather than open beyond it? Weak endings tend to summarise or interpret, telling the reader what to feel about what they have just read. Strong endings trust the poem and the reader. They tend to open outward rather than close down, leaving a resonance rather than a conclusion.
Wearing the conductor’s hat. Is the poem rushing past its best moments or lingering past its welcome? Read the poem aloud and notice where you want more time and where you want to move on. A poem that races through its most interesting image has probably not understood where its centre of gravity is. A poem that keeps going after its natural ending has not trusted itself to stop.
Wearing the surgeon’s hat. Are there unnecessary lines? Most poems are too long. Look for lines that repeat what has already been said, that explain an image rather than let it stand, or that exist only to get to the next line. Cut them and see if the poem gets stronger. It usually does.
Wearing the detective’s hat. Does it actually sound like me? This is one of the hardest questions because it requires you to know what your voice actually is. Look for lines that feel borrowed, that sound like a poem rather than like you. If you read a line and think someone else could have written it, that is worth examining. The goal is not to be different for its own sake but to be specific, and specificity is where voice lives.
Wearing the gatekeeper’s hat. Does the opening earn entry quickly, or is the real poem buried a few stanzas in? Writers often need to write their way into a poem, which means the first draft frequently has a false start at the top. Read the poem and ask where it actually begins. If the third stanza is where things come alive, consider cutting everything above it and seeing what happens.
Wearing the diver’s hat. Is the poem about what it thinks it is about, or is there a deeper subject trying to surface? A poem about a walk in the woods may actually be about grief. A poem about a childhood kitchen may actually be about forgiveness. Sometimes the stated subject is a way in to something the writer has not quite named yet. If you can feel a pressure beneath the surface of a poem, try to identify what it is and ask whether the poem is fully addressing it.
Wearing the traveller’s hat. Does the poem move? Does something change between the first line and the last? By the final line, the poem should have taken you somewhere. The change can be subtle, a shift in tone, a slight reframing, a new image that recasts everything before it. But if the last line could swap places with the first without any real loss, the poem is standing still.
Wearing the gardener’s hat. Are the images doing work, or are they decoration? An image should earn its place by doing something that direct statement cannot. It should illuminate, complicate, or extend the poem’s meaning. If an image is simply pretty, or simply there, ask what would happen if you removed it. If the answer is nothing, it is probably decoration.
Wearing the hat that keeps falling off. Where does the poem lose you, even slightly? That is usually where the problem is. This is the most useful instinct an editor can develop. You do not always need to know why a poem loses you, only to notice that it does. A moment of confusion, a line that feels off, a stanza where your attention drifts: these are signals. Mark them and bring them to the writer. The problem may not be exactly where you felt it, but it will be nearby.

Killing Your Darlings

The phrase is commonly linked to William Faulkner. Its clearer early form appears in a 1914 lecture by Arthur Quiller-Couch. He advised writers:

“Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it wholeheartedly and delete it before sending your manuscript to press. Murder your darlings.”

In a poetry collection, the darling may be a strong standalone poem that disrupts tonal coherence, a crowd-pleaser that flattens quieter tensions, an early success that no longer matches your current voice, or a poem that repeats work handled better elsewhere. The issue is not quality in isolation. It is fit.

Postcards from the Floating World began with a simple constraint: one poem a day for a 102-day world cruise. The structure felt watertight. Every day accounted for, every port recorded, the calendar as backbone.

A strict calendar can flatten voltage.

When I sent the manuscript to a few friends and then left it alone for two weeks, I came back with different eyes. Not better eyes. Just eyes that had stopped being proud of the project and started reading the poems. I saw a collection that documented the voyage faithfully but in places forgot to be a book.

I hope they agree with me I should cut nine poems. Days 5, 6, 18, 33, 34, 39, 56, 60, and 80.

The reasons vary Some are weak. Some are pleasant but go nowhere. Some cover ground handled better elsewhere. Some could have been written by anyone. Some were too raw, serving me rather than the reader. Some were repetitive.

Removing those days restored pressure to the collection. The gaps do what gaps do. They ask the reader to lean in.

The hardest cut was Day 39. I had called it Exit, a poem about the introvert’s need to slip away from noise and find a quiet corner. I liked it. I revised it carefully. It had a good last line. Read cold, it said exactly what it meant and nothing more. It did not discover anything. It confirmed what the reader already suspected about the speaker and sent them on their way. That may be enough for an essay. It is not enough for a poem.

That is what a darling looks like from the outside. Important to the writer. Explicable. Self-contained. For those reasons, faintly inert on the page.

A collection is an argument in sequence. One poem may be excellent in isolation yet distort pacing, shift register, or introduce a theme the book cannot sustain. Keeping it because it once felt important weakens the whole.

There is a structural economy at stake. Too many high-voltage poems in a row can numb the reader. Too many explanatory poems close down interpretive space. The discipline of cutting is not self-punishment. It is alignment. Asking each poem not just whether it works, but whether it works here, next to these poems, in this order, for a reader who has just come from there and is heading elsewhere.

The 102-day structure was never the point. The voyage was. And the voyage, like all voyages, was not continuous. It had dead days, wasted days, days that led nowhere. Honouring that in the manuscript means keeping some of those days. It also means knowing which serve the book and which serve the calendar.

The calendar, in the end, is not your reader’s problem.

If you are working on a collection and wondering whether a poem belongs, the question is not: is this good? You already know it is good. That is why it is still there.

The question is: does it discover, or does it confirm?

Confirmation is comfortable. Discovery is what the reader came for.

Murder your darlings. They survive the cut. You wrote them. They are already inside everything else.

REJECTION

Last week I received four rejections in the space of a few days. Close enough together to feel cumulative. I reminded myself, as I always do, that there are many reasons a strong poem is turned away.

Not a fit for the journal
A poem can be doing serious work and still fall outside a journal’s aesthetic or tonal frame. Editors shape issues deliberately. Fit is curatorial, not evaluative. Rejection here says nothing about the poem’s durability.

The editor already has enough poems
Space is finite. Once a balance of voices, forms, or subjects is reached, later submissions face a higher bar regardless of quality. Timing often outweighs merit. Many strong poems arrive after the door has effectively closed.

The poem was read after several stronger or similar pieces
Reading is comparative, not absolute. When poems echo themes or structures already encountered, even a good one can feel diminished. Fatigue is contextual. In a different sequence, the poem may have stood out.

The editor read it on a crowded, distracted day
Submissions are often read between other obligations. Attention is uneven. Energy is limited. Subtle work can be missed under these conditions. The poem did not fail the reader. The reading failed the poem.

Rejected for logistical reasons, not merit
Editorial calendars, themed issues, internal debates, and shifting priorities all shape decisions. Many rejections come after a poem has been taken seriously. Silence or form replies often mask constraint rather than judgment.

Of course I feel disappointed. Rejection costs something. But I do not feel judged. A rejection is not a verdict on the poem’s intelligence, ambition, or future. It is a situational decision made under conditions I cannot see.

My responses vary. Sometimes the poem goes straight to the next journal unchanged, a belief that the work is finished and the context was wrong. Sometimes I let it sit, then return with cooler attention. Distance can expose slack, or confirm the poem’s integrity.

I try not to revise aggressively to preempt rejection. Risk and strangeness are easy to trim and hard to restore. More often, I shelve the poem and write something new, accepting that not every strong poem needs an outlet immediately. Over time, rejection becomes background noise.

There is no ideal response. What matters is whether the response allows the work to continue. I like Sylvia Plath’s response I love my rejection slips. They show me I try.” Tony Hoagland reminds me that editors are often protecting a framework, not judging a life’s work. Mary Oliver frames rejection as ordinary labour, endures.

REVISION OF FIRST DRAFT

Spent a few days looking round online to see what authors say about revising a first draft. I’ve made a few notes and have started to outline the scenes as written.

Outline the book
Play the what-if game

Does an idea or scene really belong where you’ve put it, or would the piece be better if that element was cut? Could it be used elsewhere, or on another occasion?
Do events occur in the best order and are significant events given enough weight, or are they lost beneath less important things? If so, is that what you intended?
Does the middle sag anywhere?
Does the story unfold naturally with consistency and tension?
Does this scene matter?
setting-SIGHT, SOUND SMELL, TOUCH

Is it what you meant to say, really?
Have you found the best way to convey it?
Would a particular event really have happened that way?
Details and background information. Don’t info dump. Pace information through dialogue and narration.
Would a particular character definitely use that expression or turn of phrase?
Does this character appear all the way through the book,
Does this character still look and act the way he did at the beginning of the book?
Are my characters properly developed? Do they grow consistently throughout the book?
Are my characters likable, with strong goals and sufficient motivation?
Make sure all characters who come in contact with one another have some kind of relationship, whether good or bad.
Characters must have motivation for everything.
All characters react and act.
Each character has his or her own life.
How do characters react to setting

Does it read too slow, or too fast?
Overall, does the writing convey the right tone – does it create the mood you hoped for?f
If this scene introduces a new idea or new action, is it something that I remembered to follow through all the way to the end?
Have you followed your header, chapter, and quote scheme consistently?

climax- longest scene, twists, surprese, emotionally powerful
read it loud again