I recently got a comment back from a publisher saying thanks, but no thanks but they were kind enough to add reasons why. This is of course very unusual and I was very greatful to receive them but it brought up a question or two I'd like to throw open to everyone here. This was the comment about the submitted poems:

"It's very much focussed on small details, and too tightly written, afraid to sprawl out beyond itself or tune in to the looser but more dynamic rhythms that happen within a poem when you start writing cleanly and with utter confidence"

If that was a comment to you, what would you think they mean?

I have my own thoughs and I'm very happy with the comment but I'm intrigued to know what others think. Can a poem be too tightly written? Is beauty not in the detail? ... just two of the questions that might spring to mind.

Hi Daniel - it sounds to me, although I may be completely wrong, that whichever poem(s) you sent may have 'told' the reader what it is that they're suppose to see, especially with any imagery that is used, instead of 'showing' the reader.
Are you in a position where you want to share what it was they declined?

Difficult to pass comment without seeing the poem Daniel. such a comment invites questions about preferences of editors. Care to share?

That's kind of what I thought too. Editorial preferences are sometimes at work in these things.

I went to read your profile and looked at your poems there. They didn't seem too tight to me; but it's hard to tell what the editor is after. Sometimes a bit of research into the publisher helps: what other kinds of thing do they publish?

Thanks for the responses. I'm not looking for critique on the poems I sent in. Yes, my view was that the poems I sent weren't quite what the publisher had in mind. Unfortunatly as it's a first issue I couldn't read up anything previously published.

I'm not really a person for "telling" in my poetry. So I doubt that is it. Really I just wanted to know what is "tight" poetry to you? Can it bee too tight? too focused? I'm not saying the publisher is wrong just canvasing for a broader opinion on poetic taste, and not specifically about my poetry.

Certainly take examples from my profile and blog if you need references to the style of my writting, if you feel it helps.

It's a difficult question to answer. Personally, I increasingly prefer a looser line, and have over the last few years increasingly used chance techniques (cut & paste, mash-ups, "found" material) in my poems.

Others like to write more focussed work, using perhaps rhyme & metre or a kind of every-word counts free verse (try looking up George Oppen on Google, for instance) but it really depends on temperament, and the kind of poetry you like to read yourself. I go for relatively experimental stuff on the whole; but that's my bag.

You talked about writing for performance; I've never specifically done that, but actually performing does help to loosen things up a bit.

Funny that Steve ... the ones I sent werefor performance in mind and were a darn sight looser than some of the stuff I produce. Fair do's to the publisher... they recommended another publication today that they thought would probably be interested. Of course it helps that the publisher used to live on the Isle of Man and understands how difficult it is to keep in touch with the poetic community and it's myriad of magazines, journals and periodical chap books. I ain't no millionaire to buy them all to see which suits best.

I'm getting the impression from everyone that it is a personal preference what we like to read, write and publish. This was my initial feeling but thought I'd drop it in for discussion anyway.

If you want "tight" performance poetry, come to Bordeaux and see some of our poets in action later in the evening in the Cambridge pub, where the poetry sessions tend to go on until midnight or later (7.00 am one year, but we did have music with it).

The other thing about about this is that editors have preferences and prejudices and need to give a reason other than "didn't like it". Sod them and move on!

Performances at the Cambridge are very tight indeed and extremely well red.

This was all discussed some months ago but I was just snooping around the site to see what others are talking about and I was much struck by this question of 'tight' and 'loose'.

I have sent poems off to magazines here and there over the years, and some editors have been encouraging, but I never learnt anything from comments that came back, and I think this 'tight' or 'loose' stuff is exactly the kind of problem. People seem unable to actually say what they mean.
What is loose poetry? lots of gaps between the words?
People talk about a drawing style being 'tight' when they mean that the artist has been too exact and careful in representation, not allowing the two-dimensional nature of drawing to show. (well I think that's what they mean.) They may be referring to the idea of being 'uptight', too anxious to be right or too tense. 'Hang loose' may be the reverse of this.
But how does this really translate into poetry?
If you set yourself to keep to a particular rhythm or rhyme scheme, you would do so because it will help you convey your ideas. But if you set up the expectation of a particular pattern, then dance around it like jazz improvisation, it would take a lot more thought, but the result could appear very relaxed and cool. Would that be more 'loose'?
What about 'sprung rhythm' or working with 'breath groups'?
I am curious about this. Maybe everyone else has come to a conclusion and moved on.
Never mind, it beats watching TV.
Freda