What do you expect from a poet whose work you already know? Boston Review: Evidence of new exploration, stylistically or thematically. Or both. Or other [MJB, TD]. Five Fingers Review: From writers I like, I enjoy listening to the changes, the additional subtleties of understanding. From those I dislike, I expect the same and because I'm not usually listening very well, I think I get it. Expectations often turn you into an inattentive and therefore flawed reader. The Journal: One of two things: work which is quintessentially that poet, or work that is pushing in a direction I haven't seen the poet attempt before. Oregon East Magazine: I like to recognize poets' voices, but also see them take on new forms and ideas with each new work. Salt: Different poems! So many poets re-submit the same poems dressed up as different poems. I don't mind (in fact, welcome) the same poem re-written if the poet is "conscious" of doing this. I respect process and appreciate poetry in a meta-context. The Seattle Review: Something new and surprising. Verve: The poet's work should maintain the same level of excellence that earned it publication. Whetstone: Fresh work that is up to the poet's previous caliber; nothing that makes you look for dust from the bottom of a drawer. Back What makes work from a new poet exciting? Boston Review: When it distinguishes itself from other known voices [MJB, TD]. Five Fingers Review: Could be anything. The Journal: Craft first, then the poet's own spin on her or his craft. As I said in response to the first question, if some combination of poetic elements causes me to pay attention-in the sense that it puts me in the "place" of poetry, and of all things vital and real-then I know I've made a delicious discovery. Oregon East Magazine: Using old forms to say something unique-stretching the limits of convention, imagery. Salt: Difference. Being in touch with their own voice-not an established poet they admire or are imitating. The Seattle Review: When the work is surprising because they are taking risks and the risks work. When the poems avoid triteness and the lines are rhythmically tight. Verve: Discovering a new voice, a new talent. We're thrilled when a poet whose work was returned unpublished three, four, or five times finally connects with us. Whetstone: A new voice is like making a new friend who is unique, has something fresh to say or a new way of saying something familiar. Back Could you describe your aesthetic? Boston Review: I lean toward arcanum and archetype. I also enjoy ambiguity when it serves the poem (but not when it feels gratuitous). I like to read poems by someone who understands that it's not the story (there are so few stories), but how it's told [MJB]. I want poetry (all art, really) to transport me beyond myself, to leave me broken-hearted, blown away, or tickled to the root. I'm not blind to the beauty of restraint and subtlety, but I prefer to be overwhelmed .[TD] Five Fingers Review: No, I cannot. The journal has several editors. We each bring a different set of ideas, backgrounds, and tastes to the journal. I've set it up that way with the hope of creating a journal with lots of different kinds of writing. One thing I don't like is monochromatic reading. The Journal: I look first for the well-made thing. Then for that indefinable quality that makes it a poem: its song, its "slant" truth, its syntactical rightness. Finally, I hope for some subversion or other-of form, say, or subject matter, or meaning. Whatever it is that can delightfully dash my expectations. Oregon East Magazine: We continually seek poets and storytellers who know the conventions of writing and seek to expand and innovate them in their work. Salt: Pluralist. Eclectic. To be in touch with tradition but to strive for the "new." Even the most experimental work needs sound technique. The Seattle Review: The poet is conscious of his/her responsibility to a community of writers and to a readership that can be empowered by poetry. Verve: Our journal sparkles with bright, unique, and accurate images and metaphors. Whetstone: We favor the concrete over the abstract, the accessible over the obscure. We like poets who use words in ways that transform them and us, whose images add a new dimension, whose meaning goes beyond first impression. Back Are you a writer? Do you think there is a distinctive editorial approach among editors who are also writers? Boston Review: Yes, we're both writers. And no, we don't think this makes for a particular kind of approach. However, as writers, we do have a special sensitivity to the speed with which a rejection is sent. We know how frustrating and discouraging it is to wait six months (or even more) only to learn that the editor isn't interested [MJB, TD]. Five Fingers Review: Yes. I don't know. Most editors are writers in one way or another. The Journal: Yes. Although I can't speak for all writer/editors, I would hope that writers make generous and sympathetic readers. My co-editor, fiction writer Michelle Herman, and I considered it our mission from the start to showcase the best and most experimental work primarily of emerging, re-emerging, and under-recognized writers. Oregon East Magazine: I'm learning to write! I do think there is a distinctive approach among writers who are also editors because I know how hard it is to write a good poem (or even a good draft), so I have respect for fine work. Salt: Yes. I am known to work in "traditional" and "experimental" modes; I don't want to be pinned down. Writer/editors tend to promote what they practice-and, consequently, understand. The Seattle Review: Yes. Yes. Verve: Everyone associated with Verve is a writer. We appreciate fine writing and disdain lazy writing. Whetstone: All three Whetstone editors are published writers. Our first readers are also writers. This makes standards high: while we look for imagination, sensitivity, and truthfulness, we also respect technique. We want to think, God, I wish I'd written that! Back Do you read all submissions? Could you describe the selection process that the poems you read undergo? Boston Review: All poems submitted are read by at least one of us. We divide the unsolicited submissions evenly, read our share, and set aside those we want to consider for publication. We meet with each other on a regular basis, read closely the poems we have each set aside, discuss them, and choose which to publish [MJB, TD]. Five Fingers Review: Yes. I took over the journal just in the past year, so things are in flux. Each issue will have three to four different editors, and those editors will assemble 25-35 pages. They have absolute say over what they choose to include. I read these sections to get a sense of what to choose out of the unsolicited submissions I receive. Occasionally I will send the other editors work which I think fits into their section. Three readers make recommendations about unsolicited submissions; I read all these submissions and whatever else comes my way. The Journal: I'm lucky to have on staff a small group of talented graduate student volunteers who screen unsolicited submissions. My assistant, Bob Murdock, reads behind them all, then passes on to me maybe 20-25% of the slush with comments. Work I solicit, of course I read myself. On a poem by poem basis, year-round, Bob and I (and sometimes a third reader) make final decisions. Oregon East Magazine: Yes, we do. We have a committee of four readers who read all the submissions, then meet to discuss and select those we want to see in the magazine. Salt: Yes. If I like a piece, I find a place for it. We have up to 400 pages twice a year, so I can afford to do this. I try to publish contextually, however. The Seattle Review: Yes. They are juried by a panel of peers. Verve: We read every submission accompanied by a SASE. Poems are first read by associate editors. Some are sent back; others are passed on to the editor and then the publisher. The finalists are then either accepted for publication or returned. Whetstone: Each manuscript is read by a first reader and one editor. All three editors read and discuss those that rise from this group. We sometimes surprise each other with pieces we champion. This doesn't mean compromise; rather, our pages offer a broader sampling than each of us might have chosen on our own. Back Are cover letters crucial? Do you prefer original, creative, or factual ones? How long should they be? Boston Review: They're not crucial, but I like them. Otherwise it feels as if the poems have dropped from the sky. The letters give a sense of a human being behind the poems. I prefer that they be short and factual, with the facts limited to the author's experience as a poet. I don't enjoy knowing about hobbies or pets [MJB]. I too appreciate a short and factual letter. Actually, I expect one. [TD] Five Fingers Review: I prefer factual letters of one or two paragraphs. The Journal: No, but I confess to glancing at them. They should be brief, very brief, and serve to inform or update, never to explain. "Creative" cover letters are useless at best and prejudicial at worst. Oregon East Magazine: We like short cover letters that include brief but creative bios. Salt: A brief letter stating purpose and listing names of poems. No bio necessary; we don't publish bio notes. The Seattle Review: Yes, cover letters are important. We prefer short and factual letters. Verve: Cover letters are not crucial. We prefer a short personal note. Whetstone: If a cover letter is included, it should be brief, factual, and carefully written. We look at it as an introduction. Sloppy turns us off. A lengthy list of obscure publication credits is unimpressive; the poem submitted is judged on its own merit. Back When do you write handwritten notes instead of sending rejection slips? Boston Review: Occasionally. For instance, when we are sent a poem that we seriously consider publishing but eventually decide to pass on, we usually let the poet know that he or she came close. Also, when we respond to the poet's voice but aren't completely drawn to any particular one of the poems submitted, we'll ask to see more work [MJB, TD]. Five Fingers Review: Because the journal has themes for each issue, I'll often get an interesting, well-written submission that isn't quite right for our theme. So I'll drop a note to the writer and suggest the he or she submit something else. Sometimes I'll write a note to young writers whose work seems promising but unfinished or unfocused. The Journal: Only when I want to encourage a writer to try us again and to not give up on us. Oregon East Magazine: When a poem has something that could develop into a fine piece of writing if the writer was willing to revise. Also, when we have kept a piece for a long time but finally turn it down. Salt: When I feel the poet is likely to produce work that may appeal. The Seattle Review: Never. We simply don't have time. Verve: We never send form rejection slips. Handwritten notes accompany all returns. Whetstone: As writers, the editors are sensitive to providing any comments that may be helpful to an author whose work interested us but didn't make the final cut. Back You can submit poems to any of these journals at the following addresses: Boston Review Mary Jo Bang Timothy Donnelly E53-407 MIT Cambridge MA 02139 Five Fingers Review Jaime Robles P.O. Box 15426 San Francisco, CA 94115 The Journal Kathy Fagan Department of English The Ohio State University 164 West 17th Avenue Columbus, OH 43210 Oregon East Magazine Sherri Edvalson Hoke College Center #304 Eastern Oregon State College La Grande, OR 97850 Salt John Kinsella Churchill College Cambridge, CB3 0DS England The Seattle Review Colleen J. McElroy University of Washington Department of English Box 354330 Seattle, WA 98195-4330 Verve Ron Reichick P.O. Box 3205 Simi Valley, CA 93093 Whetstone Sandra Berris Marsha Portnoy Jean Tolle Barrington Area Arts Council P.O. Box 1266 Barrington, IL 60011 Back