When I started Wayleave I didn’t have a strong idea of how selective I’d be. It just seemed a nice idea. However, the first few pamphlets that came my way seemed so complete and accomplished they set a standard. Now I find myself operating by particular, if difficult to define, criteria. Basically there’s the gut feeling for something, how much I like it; because what it all boils down to in the end is that often irritating and unfathomable thing, the editor’s individual taste. (I make no apologies.)

But beyond this, whether I want to publish depends on a combination of the quality of the writing and a thematic focus. I also look for ‘depth of field’, to borrow another phrase from photography, by which I mean some gravitas or meaningful resonance.

I plan to submit each pamphlet for The Michael Marks Awards or, in the case of a Scottish subject or poet, the Callum Macdonald Awards. So I must feel they are good enough to at least stand a chance at the shortlist.

Then there is the ‘blurb’ test. Personally I have a preference for having nothing on the back cover, as I did for my own self-published pamphlets, but that’s not alright when I’m publishing others. I need to do the poets justice and make the pamphlets sound worth buying. So the ‘blurb’ test asks the following: a) can I say easily on the back cover what these poems are about and b) can I say with confidence these poems are as good as they can be?

On the matter of blurbs, since the prospective reader needs to be able to believe the blurb, it has to accurately reflect what’s inside – no unrealistic claims and a minimum of waffle. Arty poetspeak like ‘what it means to be human’ and undeserved hype like ‘raises the bar for us all’ are definitely out. I’ll leave that to one or two of the big publishing houses who seem to like to go in for it. The slide towards vaguery and ‘blurbese’, or what the late Dennis O’Driscoll called ‘blurbonic plague’, can creep up on you, I know, and I’m sure I’m not entirely innocent here. I think it happens when the writer becomes more concerned with presentation than accuracy, a sort of printed word ‘soundbite’ mentality. I find much back cover stuff over-inflated, sometimes to the point of being silly. I think it can have the opposite of the desired effect, making the reader either feel he or she is missing something and therefore inadequate, or it can irritate to the point of putting you off the contents. It also does a great disservice to the poet.