Headway Quarterly publishes previously unpublished fiction, poetry, essays, and other written work on any theme. The editors also publish an idea of the writing process for each published work. “Readers don’t usually see much of what goes into a published piece, and we want to explore the possibilities that unfold when we publish product and process side by side.” Read the complete guidelines here.
SQF: Why did you start this magazine?
Headway Quarterly: As a group of writers with experience in writing pedagogy and composition theory, we are instinctually intrigued by the process of writing and are used to examining it when working with students’ writing (or our own). The idea came up when we were tossing around possible concepts for the journal, and it immediately made sense. Once we articulated the possibility, we realized how little “writing process” we see in our daily lives and in other literary magazines. We hoped that by publishing process alongside product, we could break down the fourth wall a bit between reader and author to both bring the author’s voice to bear on their own work and allow the reader more context into the creation of the piece.
SQF: What are the top three things you look for in a submission and why?
HQ: For us, a certain level of technical skill is necessary in order for us to consider a submission. Obviously, this is hard to define; we love writing that challenges conventions, but there’s a certain amount of intentionality necessary for us to stick with something we’re reading. In discussing entries, we try to challenge our internalized ideas of what “good writing” is, but effective writing is always important. A lack of command of the words is the most common reason we choose not to publish a piece.
Given a clear command of words, we each look for and discuss moments that make us think (or laugh, or cringe…). It’s hard to come up with an original thought these days, but we’re so thrilled by how many truly rich, nuanced, challenging things we’ve published.
We do pay attention to the process materials (or the potential for them). Usually, people don’t include these with their initial submission—but sometimes they’ll indicate what they’re thinking, and certain types of writing have interesting process almost built in (collage poetry, pastiche, memoir, etc.)
SQF: What most often turns you off to a submission?
HQ: When the author doesn’t seem to be in command of the voice or the words. It’s not easy to explain what this means, but you can tell when you see it—it’s about intentionality. In a poem, are these words really doing something? Or is there a clear reason they’re not doing something? Does the point of view of the work seem consistent? It sometimes feels like words are used arbitrarily. From a reader’s point of view, trust in the author can be shaky for the wrong reasons. Words that seem empty are typically not effective, unless there’s something being said by the emptiness of them.
Further, while we generally prefer pieces that are free of errors, this is not necessarily a turn off. We strongly encourage proofreading, but we like to practice sympathetic reading and won’t reject submissions based on errors unless it becomes an impediment to understanding the piece.
SQF: What do you look for in the opening paragraph(s)/stanza(s) of a submission?
HQ: We want to believe that there are no set rules for an opener, but the truth of the matter is that the first lines set the reader’s expectations and prime them for what’s to come. There has to be something that sets a mood, or subverts, or piques, or provokes, or raises a question, or winks. It’s not that an author has to be super punchy or show their hand completely—but the first words are really important, and there has to be something there that lets the reader know you have something to say.
SQF: What piece of advice can you offer writers hoping to be published in Headway Quarterly?
HQ: First of all, please read our submission guidelines! Second of all, be creative, original, interesting, avantgarde, experimental—anything that will make you stand out. As editors, we want to publish works that make us think, that challenge our assumptions, and that promote goodness. We’re always happy to see submissions from authors we have seen before, either who have been published in a previous issue or who we were not able to accept, as we love to see how writing changes and grows with some feedback.
And that’s another thing: seek feedback! From friends, writing colleagues, anyone who can offer a second set of eyes. It’s generally evident when someone has taken the time to seek out and incorporate constructive criticism into their work. Writing is rarely a solitary act, and we encourage writers to embrace this spirit of collaboration. Our goal isn’t always to force an explication of process. We’re interested in writers who think about process, and one of the best ways to think more about our writing processes is to seek feedback on our work.
SQF: What one question on this topic do you wish I'd asked that I didn't? And how would you answer it?
HQ: How we engage with our writers!
Our interest in process is about how the writing community “makes headway” and creates great work, so we have several ways that we try to engage our authors and readers. Follow our Twitter @HeadwayLit and sign up for our newsletter where we share what we’re reading and thinking about! Send us notes, comments, questions at editors@headwaylit.org, and check out our website for updates on contests, collaborations, new issues, and open reader positions. We love to hear from readers and contributors about what’s working and what’s not--like all writers (and editors), we’re constantly reviewing our own process!
Thank you, Benjamin, Anna, and Hannah. We all appreciate you taking time from your busy schedule to participate in this project.
No comments:
Post a Comment