Pages

Friday, December 29, 2023

Six Questions for Marina Kraiskaya (Brown), Managing Editor, Bicoastal Review

Bicoastal Review publishes poetry, nonfiction, photography, and art. They especially welcome ekphrastic writing that imitates, borrows, challenges, or is otherwise in conversation with work they have previously published. Read the complete guidelines here.

SQF: Why did you start this journal?

Marina Kraiskaya: The concept for Bicoastal Review was the brainchild of my friend and fellow poet Luis Torres, who is working on his MFA. We wanted to create a unique, community-building publication that bridged the coastal and cultural divide between New York and California/Oregon – but that did not subscribe to the typical elitist implications that come with the word “bicoastal.” To this journal, “bicoastal” refers to the peoples, cultures, art, and ecology of the East Coast and West Coast – but also to the community of writers that we have connected with in the vast states in between. We accept submissions from all over the world and do not base each issue around mentions of particular U.S. states.

 We also wanted to straddle the lines between edgy, modern narratives and traditionally beautiful, quiet writing. Hopefully, we are accomplishing that goal.

I was brought on to the project because I have been a professional editor for years. I am now BR’s managing editor. I value the little things that (would) mean the world to me if extended by other publications – like emailing back and forth with writers, workshopping poems that we believe in and have a vision for, or sending snail mail to our contributors and hearing about how they’re doing in life and in their careers. I put a LOT of thought into how poems are arranged and how themes speak to each other in each issue.

As a poet, I know exactly how overwhelming and vulnerable it is to submit to even one publication. I respect every person who has taken the time to share their work with our journal and try my best to respond in a timely manner and offer what I can. I don’t like the phrase “slush pile.” I also want anyone reading this to know that rejections from journals are not a reflection of quality or of your passion; most often, an editor is hoping to fill a very specific content gap, and your mutual needs simply didn’t align on that day.


SQF: What are the top three things you look for in a submission and why?

MK: Authenticity of voice, cohesion of conceit, and a sense that nothing is missing – that the poem has pushed as far as it could and dug up some gem from the depths of the unconscious. That it makes us feel something. That it can be read more than once to a greater effect. My common test of a submission that I am on the fence about is whether I remember it after 48 hours. If I do, that is a sign that the voice is strong, which is more important than the poem being perfect. If I have an edit for the poem, the writer is usually willing to hear me out and revise. As a small journal, we are able to value potential over perfection and build those relationships.

We receive many submissions of what is popular at the moment – narrative/prosaic poetry about self-identity. I would love to see more nonfiction submissions, critiques of anything going on in the literary world, examinations of history, ekphrastic writing, and lyrical ecopoetry.


SQF: What most often turns you off to a submission?

MK: Of course, we want everyone to read our guidelines, purchase print issues, and maybe even write us a little note about why they are submitting. When a submission is completely different in subject or tone from our usual vibe, it seems like the individual is just shooting blindly at too many journals. We also prefer to see at least 3 poems in one document, in 11-14 sized font.

I have a strong aversion to cliché, ripe fruit as sexual allusion, casual bashing of the feminine (why is this so common?), poems that could have been short stories and accomplished the same result, childhood memories that are meaningful only to the writer, AI or bot poems, Instapoetry, poems that rely on aphorisms or proverbs, blunt rhetorical questions, lazy use of the word “thing,” poems that poorly use the word “dust,” and poems that explain themselves rather than letting an image speak.

We also do not accept any form of hate speech.

 

SQF: What do you look for in the opening paragraph(s)/stanza(s) of a submission?

MK: The first line of a poem can tell you so much about what is to come. Perhaps the writer establishes a conflict or presents a mystery. The first line also determines how the rest of the lines will be formed, or how they will begin to deviate from this particular line to convey a message. Scene-setting can be important, but tone-setting is even more crucial. Too many first lines are either too vague and ethereal, or try so hard to shock that they push their reader out. Hyper-elevation in this way is the poetic equivalent of a fiction book’s main character immediately being “the chosen one” with magical powers and golden eyes.

Of course not a necessity for an excellent poem, but it is also beautiful and masterful to have an end-stopped first line that reads like its own tiny poem. Titles can function in much the same ways. I love a unique title that adds some new information or tone to the poem.

Our second and third issues, for example. include these great first lines: “Last night, my wife mistook me for a ghost.” (Rosalind Shoopmann). “The first one thousand days, eat nothing” (Aimee Lim). “My gun and I meet. It’s for freedom” (Francis Bede). And “the desert labors like a postmenstrual woman” (Annie Lure). Those all make me want to read more!


SQF: Many editors list erotica, or sex for sex sake, as hard sells. What are hard sells for your publication?

MK: Political poetry is very difficult to do well and to write in a timeless way; to not overdo the emotion and to use “cold hard facts” toward a purpose that truly serves the poem. Political poetry is like sexual poetry in that it is not the subject matter itself that is a hard sell. It is not that journals demand nice, clean political correctness. The issue lies in the way people approach these topics: subject-first, rather than conceit-first. The result is often an overly intense, crusading, somewhat hollow “journal entry” type of poem that is reliant on cliché or feels closed off. 


SQF: What one question on this topic do you wish I'd asked that I didn't? And how would you answer it?

MK: This is a wonderful project and conversation. If I was the interviewer, I might ask about processes of communication, audience, and community. I believe a journal should not exist if its main purpose is to elevate the names of its staff, to be shocking, to be a gimmick, etc. Poets and editors (and I am both) usually are aware that their reader is at work on the material right alongside them – turning, interpreting, empathizing, responding, breathing, being with their stories, symbols, and rhythms. So, we serve our audience – end stop. We create art, arrange it, and present it to add to the deep meaning of the collective, rather than to feed our own egos or resumes. We should be in this world to coax out and encounter new truths and perspectives about what it means to be human. We should be in this world because we can’t live without it.

Thank you, Marina. We all appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to participate in this project.


No comments:

Post a Comment