Editor Interview: Harvard Square Editions

A Brussels Anthology

There are so many, so I can hardly do justice to all the ones I like. I'll mention three: Faber & Faber, as I've always loved the quality of the writing that they support; Bloodaxe, given that they released the amazing Staying Alive poetry collection; and Vintage, as they have published so many authors that I've read. But there are dozens more....

Personally, I'm a great fan of Trace K. Smith (poet with a deep human touch), of Haruki Murakami (novelist that explored a depth few others reach), and Neil Gaiman (amazing story-teller).

On writing, I'm proud to announce that The Circle: A Brussels Anthology that I edited is coming out on 14 October 2018 (with book launch at Waterstones in Brussels on the 22nd November). This collection houses 54 works by 34 authors from 19 countries - that has sprung from authors who are or have been members of The Brussels Writers Circle (BWC). BWC has proven a valuable touch-down ground for international arrivals and venue for integrating those with a passion for the written word.

Write a piece that explores something important to you, make sure that it sings for you, share it with someone you respect (i.e. BETA reader writing or reading in the same genre) and see whether it speaks to them. Listen to their feedback but keep the piece your own. If you have several such pieces and are deciding which to submit, choose the one your BETA reader would enthusiastically recommend others to read - "word-of-mouth" and enthusiasm are as important indicators of a good story, as good words and fine rhythm.

The ideal submission is one that you'd read in one sitting, understand in one reading, but wish to reread to get the nuance and explore the depth and enjoy the language. It is one where you'd be able to say to a friend, 'Hey, read this!' For this you'd need something new - and that can be anything: character, image, mystery, plot, insight, language. Ideally in the read-through one wouldn't stumble on punctuation or word choices, get kicked out of the story by inconsistencies or character voices that don't work, get distracted by imbalances in emphasis and importance - i.e. the reader should be able to read the story or poem undistracted. In short, make it sing, make it new, make it something your neighbour at a writers meeting would hand to their neighbour.

They submit drafts that are "almost there", and they've forgotten to do a tight language edit before submitting. As soon as a reader stubs his/her toe on the first clunky sentence, the reader moves from appreciating the story/poem to putting on the radar for errors. Once that radar is on high alert, the critical analytic faculties kick in and the chance of an appreciative assessment falls.

First and foremost, it is the power of the piece that matters. I'd of course be curious to know who the person is who submitted it as it makes the job more interesting, but it has to be the merits of the piece that count. That said, for anthologies it is good to have a diversity of backgrounds, but while an interesting factor, it shouldn't trump quality - so it is more an issue when there is a choice between two equally interesting pieces but where there are space constraints. So, I'd welcome a cover letter that says something about the person as one gets a feel for the community of writers out there, and pending the nature of the publication, it can provide useful additional information. On lists of previous publication credits, this helps give a sense of confidence and context, but I'd not wish to be too anchored to that; the quality of the submission should define the choice.

I tend to read it until the end, even if I get the feeling early on that it is not quite right. I like to give the submission a second chance and also to see what I like about it even if it doesn't fully work. Understanding what does and doesn't work can help me give positive feedback even if the submission isn't accepted this time. There is always a next time.

It is always useful to do a plagiarism test (though that should be in the submission criteria) and double check that there is no inappropriate language or messaging (e.g. overtly racist or sexist or other discriminatory overtones).

As reading submissions requires a certain amount of concentration, combining both the creative sides of one's mind and the critical analytical side, I'd tend to read two to three at most in one sitting before taking a break. I'd tend to do one sitting in the morning and, time permitting, one in the evening. I'd make comments directly on the submission in my own file to keep notes and try on the first reading to have an overall assessment that identifies the three things I liked about the submission and potentially the three things that were less strong. I'd add a preliminary overall judgements such as "definitely interesting", "probably interesting", to "less strong/developed" and some "read agains" where I felt my state of mind wasn't giving the piece a fair read. I'd then leave them and go to the next bunch in my next reading window. Once I've gone through the lot, I'd reread the definitely interesting and probably interesting, and the "read agains", and check my choice, adding further comments where helpful. Usually, I'd find someone I trusted to talk about my choice and any concerns or questions I had. Depending on what was promised in the call for submissions, I'd write a thank you letter with both news on the selection and, if appropriate and wished, constructive feedback.
More widely - I've started to read more and more anthologies to see how others have decided on form and structure and balance. I've also started to read across a much wider set of literary genres as I became aware that I'd need to step above or broaden my personal preferences for an anthology to work for a wide set of readers.

This depends on what was agreed in advance when the call for submissions came out. In The Circle I read each submission three or four times at different stages of the process, and gave comments to each submitter - at both high levels (what I liked and what I thought needed attention), and some line editing. If there was a repeated error or inconsistency, I raise it once and say to watch out for it afterwards. And yes, the author gets to approve the final edits. We also send them the page-proofs to check.

I've not done that yet, but I do encourage authors to submit to competitions and awards so that they give visibility for their work.