Editors Panel Number Two

On July 23 the Sewanee Writers conference hosted another set of editors—those from Blackbird, Southwest Review, New Criteria, Kenyon Review, and Epoch. Edward Hower, who works with Epoch was ostensibly the panel’s moderator, but in reality this was a group effort. Rather than embellishing questions one by one, I decided to break this up by journal. It seemed easier. Here we go!

Blackbird

An on-line journal run by Mary Flinn, who also works with The New Virginia Review, Blackbird began as an attempt to bypass the limitations of traditional journals—those of publication and distribution, chiefly. Unlike many on-line journals, who seem to rise and fade faster than one can blink, Blackbird seems highly reputable, publishing quality work from fine authors. They are not confined by length requirements, and generate far more hits on their site than any of the other journals achieve via general readership (when asked about accessability, other editors described libraries and general subscribers, while Flinn just turned her laptop screen to the audience and smiled). And while their products may vary, the other editors—by degrees—acknowledged Blackbird as perhaps providing a model for trends in publication. The editor of Kenyon Review seemed especially interested in developing an on-line counterpart, though they all seemed cautious of creating one that could substitute for the journal itself.

Kenyon Review

Like many editors, David Lynn began his talk by restating Kenyon‘s commitment to placing emerging authors alongside established talent. As evidenced by his interest in Blackbird, Lynn believes that literary journals—and literature itself—are at a turning point, and no one is prepared to assert what impact the internet will have upon the industry. He has taken pains, however, to keep Kenyon relevant, and in his tenure the magazine has developed a heightened web presence and an on-line submission system (which replaces the more cumbersome paper system). Also, as a result of MFA programs, writers groups, and a general destygmatization of writing as a profession, Lynn believes that more good writing is being produced now than any time in the country’s history. Though there are some unpleasant trends—all editors expressed their disdain at what they called the popularity of the “ME-moir”—there are more reasons for enthusiasm than anxiety. As a footnote, Lynn also said there is nothing wrong with inquiring about a submission after three months.

Epoch

I was interested in this one, as Epoch has been a favorite of mine for some time, and I find their fiction consistently compelling. Like Kenyon, they rejoice in finding unheralded talent, and were instrumental in giving Joyce Carol Oates her start, back in the day. Regarding the benefits of journals, Hower was quick to point out that journals give you credability when submitting book manuscripts, as they demonstrate an awareness of the publishing process and give you a certain prestige. He also said—surprisingly—that Epoch has a staff of graduate students required to work at the journal for at least one semester, making editorial tastes notoriously difficult to pin down. Hower also said that simultaneous submissions aren’t exactly encouraged, but you can get away with it if you’re careful. He also said that if a story is longer than fifteen pages chances of acceptance drop dramatically, and he encouraged people to submit again to magazines that have already accepted you.

Southwest Review

This magazine, for whatever reason, was off my radar until this presentation, despite the fact that they are the third oldest literary quartely in the country (_The Sewanee Review_ is the oldest. The editor was an entertaining speaker who listed the benefits of small journals as (1) validation, (2) $25 checks, (3) attention from agents. Among other tidbits, he said they are consistently panhandling for funds, and that Naghib Mahfouz and Arthur Miller both died shortly after being accepted—their careers presumably complete. Like Lynn, Willard Spiegelman bemoaned the popularity of memoirs, but also extolled the virtues of essayistic non-fiction, especially things that “make me interested in something I am otherwise not interested in.” In response to an audience question, he claimed that the magazine does not ascribe to any one school of literary scholarship, owing to his belief that “nothing dates so badly as literary criticism.”

New Criteria

Honestly, I have very few notes on this speaker. For his introduction, he said that The New Criteria did not publish fiction, and as a consequence I devoted most of my time to chronicling the thoughts of editors who did publish fiction. I do remember him saying, however, that the small readership of journals is misleading, since these readers are the right readers, and the publications can open subsequent doors.

I’ll post on other panels soon. In the meantime, if anyone has other information about these panels—things I missed—I’d love for you to contact me.

Posted by Alan Ackmann - Jul 31, 06:55 PM.
Related Articles:
On the Passing of Michael Crichton
It Smells Like Noise in Here . . .
AP Reading Two: Once More Unto the Beach, Dear Friends

Commenting is closed for this article.