Speaking of Editors [by Sally Ashton]

But first—woooooooot! Just JUST finished teaching my last class of the semester. That’s the last of it for this meat grinder. Okay, okay. No more sausage. And I do have something more serious to consider today. It’s Monday, afterall. But once you get started with a metaphor, it’s so hard to let it go.

 As editor of a poetry journal, the DMQ Review, I must admit the first thing I read in any new issue of the annual Best American Poetry Anthology, once I’ve scanned the list of names on the back cover for my own personal favorites, is the pair of introductions to each volume. These introductions, the guest editor’s and the series editor’s, are always must-reads. In his, David Lehman offers both an introduction to the guest editor as well as an incisive “year in review” look at the world of poetry, its trends and trend-setters. Never afraid of the Big Questions or the hot topic, Lehman opens this year’s consideration asking, “What is a poet?”

The guest editor, on the other hand, must provide a rationale—if not defense—as to why she or he is naming these poems “Best” out of all the poems published in a year, as well as why he or she feels qualified to make such determinations. Tricky and instructive. This year, I am particularly intrigued with guest editor David Wagoner’s introduction to Best American Poetry 2009. Wagoner doesn’t shy away from the hard questions either, asking at one point, “What is a poem?” Between the two of them, these editors are taking nothing for granted!

What I found really fascinating was the submission test Wagoner put himself through during his guest-editing stint in order to gauge current response times, effectively asking why can’t poetry editors make up their minds sooner!?! He relates how on December 1, 2007, he submitted poems to fifty American magazines, and 13 months later had not heard back from almost a fifth of them! Nine journals still had not responded! This is news most poets could have provided themselves, but coming from the founding editor of Poetry Northwest, this is news indeed. Did he use a pseudonym, for chrissake? When he was still serving as editor, Wagoner says his own policy was to reply in a month. This made me wish I’d submitted to Poetry Northwest before! 

Editors are often writers, too, and know both sides of this conundrum, making those who don’t respond to their contributors within some “reasonable” time frame seem less than compassionate. At the DMQ, response time is typically 2 months. For us, a virtual team of far-flung editors, our method of collecting and distributing online submissions on a monthly basis doesn’t allow for a quicker turn-around. Submissions must be processed, distributed, reviewed, returned and re-processed. This takes untold hours. If our submissions suddenly doubled, there’s no way we could keep current response times without some serious restructuring. . .And we, like many journals, are an all-volunteer operation. The DMQ editorial team is a cracker-jack group of practicing poets, dedicated to getting work that isn’t their own published, and putting together a journal that we too will enjoy reading. I’d think that’s how most journals operate, whether hard copy or in the ether as we are.

So, fellow editors, what’s up? Back logged and short-staffed, underfunded or what funding? That’s my guess. And of course, many journals are produced as part of the academic year. But for those 10%ers out there…it’s good to rethink what we’re doing and how best to do it, to take care of both the poem and the poet.

(I’m serious; put that metaphor down).

Comments

[DL]

Thank you for the shout out, Sally. Understaffed, overworked, underfunded: all those things you cite account for the maddening delays -- plus the need to arrive at consensus among a group of editors. But it's great that DMQ prides itself on rapid response.