Now and Then: Poems about generations,
editors: Adrienne Jansen, Joan Begg, Lonny Carey, Rebecca Chester, Wesley Hollis, Roman Ratcliff, Riah Tahana-Dawson, Michelle Strand,
Landing Press, 2024
Editing poetry – Is there an imbalance?
Is there a power imbalance in the relationship between a writer and an editor?
Do writers feel free to refuse an editor’s suggested changes?
Near the end of 2024, Landing Press conducted a survey on editing poetry with poets featured in our new anthology Now and Then. We were prompted by a panel discussion on this subject in the Verb Festival; during the discussion the question of a power imbalance between writer and editor came up. This question is of particular interest to us at Landing Press so we decided to pursue it further.
For some people, poetry is seen as a personal and subjective form of writing to which the editing practice does not apply. However, most writers, ourselves included, see poetry as a form which generally can be strengthened with careful, or maybe rigorous, editing. We see editing as being as valuable for poetry as it is for prose.
Landing Press publishes anthologies of accessible poems, with a social justice edge. We’re committed to including a wide diversity of voices, and particularly voices rarely heard. So we publish the whole range from well-known established writers to first time writers. But this means that we need to be willing to invest a large amount of time working, particularly with new writers, in an editing or mentoring capacity.
Also, our criterion for selection is not simply ‘the best’. We may want to include a poem because of its unique perspective, while recognising that it may need substantial work to bring it to a publishable standard.
We are unapologetically hands-on and often rigorous editors. And although we have a number of new writers, we treat all writers the same. We are always clear that we are offering suggestions only, and that the final decision always remains with the writer.
But we also know that there’s an emotional punch in the editing process. No matter how experienced we are, receiving feedback on our work can require a deep breath, a step back from a default defensive position, and time to consider the suggestions.
The panel discussion at Verb made us realise that we were in a unique position to gather data on the editing process – because we had just published an anthology which involved a lot of editing, because we have such a wide range of writers, and because we maintain communication with the writers, so we have a relationship with them.
We set up a survey through SurveyMonkey, to which 34 writers responded anonymously. The survey asked three simple questions. Underlying them were two questions that we were asking ourselves: is there a power imbalance that might affect the way writers respond to us, and can we do better?
The questions, and responses, were:
Was the editing process helpful?
Yes – 30 (88%) No. 1 (3%) Not sure 3 (9%)
Did you feel you could say no to editing suggestions for your poem?
Yes 24 (71%) No 3 (9%) Not sure 7 (20%)
If changes were made to your original poem, do you believe your poem was better after the editing was completed?
Yes 23 (74%) No 2 (6%) Not sure 6 (20%).
So there was a high level of satisfaction (88% seeing the editing process as helpful) but there was obviously room for improvement.
The survey also provided an opportunity to comment, and 24 writers did so. This was probably the most valuable part of the survey.
The comments were generally very positive, and a number of writers mentioned how the editing process would help them with future writing.
Obviously for some writers we didn’t make it clear enough up front that we were offering suggestions only. We need to state this more than once, especially for writers not familiar with the editing process.
The comments underlined how important it is for us to explain why we are suggesting certain editing changes. Several writers observed how useful/essential that is.
One writer was clearly unhappy with the editing process, which they found too intrusive, although they concluded that their poem was stronger for it!
There was a comment that more time would be useful: this is always tricky, because publishing runs to such tight deadlines, yet we know that the whole editing process requires a generosity of time.
We respond to writers as ‘The Landing Press team’. One writer felt that it would be better dealing with a named individual. We’ll think about that. We work as a team, under the oversight of a very experienced editor, and we also employ a consulting editor as an extra pair of eyes on challenging or unresolved questions. The editing of many of the poems is a consultative process.
This has been a very valuable exercise for Landing Press. We see ourselves as building a community of writers, and we certainly don’t want some imbalance of power, or any ‘us and them’ feeling. In 2025 there is a team of nine running Landing Press, and we are all writers ourselves. We also describe Landing Press as a learning press, where hopefully everyone – the team, the writers – is on a learning path. This survey will help shape the way we respond in the editing process to contributors to the next book (which will be about food!)
Rhia de Jong and Adrienne Jansen, Landing Press
NZ Poetry Shelf 