I've looked at many literary magazine's guidelines, and they usually say one of two things, or both. They usually say something about publishing the best work they can find, and/or else they say they suggest you comb over their back issues so you get an idea of what they like. Sometimes they even try to describe what they like, but most of the time their descriptions aren't relevant or cogent. It boils down to quality, and they think you need to read their back issues to see what they mean.
One clear exception is when they are devoted to a particular slant or theme, which is easily stated: Send your lefty stuff to Minnesota Review, send your gender stuff to, well, anywhere I guess. Send your fairy tale stuff to one place, your confessionals elsewhere.
Why don't editors articulate their aesthetics plainly? Because they can't. Good art has that certain something, which defies definition--at least that's a premise on the art side of our civilization.
They could say: Read our past issues so you can intuit what we can't describe. You're the poet, after all, you should be sensitive to these things.
Oh, there is a little more to it than that. Tastes do vary from zine to zine. A few stand out. Rattle does a great job of being inclusive and taking risks. As far as Poetry or the New Yorker, well, if you've read enough of their poems, you have a sense of how they tack slightly one way or the other from other mags. If you want to publish there, you will usually need to ponder their past work and conform as subtly in your soul as you can to that directive. A few other zines, too, have a slightly individual aesthetic. But it seems that the vast majority of lit mags are interchangeable. Isn't that right?
So, for most of them, you don't need to bother to look at their past issues. You already know what's in them. If you have any doubt, just glance at a few of their covers. And if you've think that poem you wrote has that certain something, it very well might, and then it doesn't matter which editor you send it to, there's a chance that any one of them might like it.
One clear exception is when they are devoted to a particular slant or theme, which is easily stated: Send your lefty stuff to Minnesota Review, send your gender stuff to, well, anywhere I guess. Send your fairy tale stuff to one place, your confessionals elsewhere.
Why don't editors articulate their aesthetics plainly? Because they can't. Good art has that certain something, which defies definition--at least that's a premise on the art side of our civilization.
They could say: Read our past issues so you can intuit what we can't describe. You're the poet, after all, you should be sensitive to these things.
Oh, there is a little more to it than that. Tastes do vary from zine to zine. A few stand out. Rattle does a great job of being inclusive and taking risks. As far as Poetry or the New Yorker, well, if you've read enough of their poems, you have a sense of how they tack slightly one way or the other from other mags. If you want to publish there, you will usually need to ponder their past work and conform as subtly in your soul as you can to that directive. A few other zines, too, have a slightly individual aesthetic. But it seems that the vast majority of lit mags are interchangeable. Isn't that right?
So, for most of them, you don't need to bother to look at their past issues. You already know what's in them. If you have any doubt, just glance at a few of their covers. And if you've think that poem you wrote has that certain something, it very well might, and then it doesn't matter which editor you send it to, there's a chance that any one of them might like it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment