Abyss
& Apex likes to see strong, emotionally resonant,
literary-quality poetry with a clear speculative element (fantasy,
science fiction, or any combination of the two), as well as scifaiku
and what some call “science poetry” or “astronomy poetry.”
Although dark fantasy and dark SF are encouraged, we DO NOT publish
horror. Read the complete guidelines here.
SQF:
What, when reading a submission, really gets you excited?
John
Mannone: I get excited when I can publish the best speculative
poetry out there. And I get doubly excited when that poetry
stimulates the intellect as well as the imagination, but also
educates as well as entertains. I get excited when the poem sticks
with me after I’ve read it and when it transcends genre. I want
poetry that is accessible, but I want literary quality poetry with a
speculative element, especially science fiction and fantasy, which
also has literary depth (be able to answer the “so what?”
question). I favor lyrical work, but conversational pieces are fine
provided they too have impeccable rhythm and something more to offer
than story. In a recent interview with the editor of Poetry
Pacific, Chanming Yuan, I go into more depth on my editorial
focus and personal aesthetics.
SQF:
What most often turns you off to a submission?
JM:
I’ve said it elsewhere before—I eschew cut-up prose arranged
to look like a poem. I understand that narratives and conversational
pieces could look prosy, but there should be a preponderance of
poetic craft present to lift it into poetry. However, the single most
flagrant violation I caution against is inattentiveness to rhythm and
flow and to the music of words. Even conversationally toned pieces
can be skillfully crafted. The other mortal sin is lack of literary
depth.
I
am usually not impressed by cutesy or clever pieces, and very short
work must be stellar to be considered (though it has a better chance
for publication if the short pieces are either linked or form a
loosely themed constellation).
SQF:
Will you publish a submission an author posted on a personal blog?
JM:
In general, no. I tend not to publish material posted on a
personal blog, especially because we are a paying market. I want
material that hasn’t appeared anywhere before that would be
available to the general public.
SQF:
What do you want authors to know about the submissions you reject and
how authors should respond?
JM:
I am going to answer a broader question—my process of
selection/rejection. I personally read each submission several times
over a period of time before I respond. The process is a little
different here than for other venues because though we publish
quarterly, we have only two specific monthly windows during which we
accept poetry submissions electronically (June and December). I read
the poems when they arrive in my inbox to get a general sense of the
work. I record my first impressions. A week or two later, I do a more
careful reading and cull the selections for the ones that merit a
closer look, and then again at the end of the reading period to make
the final selections for the next two issues. With the author’s
permission, I may carry/hold some work over, but I try to avoid that;
it is best for the author to make submissions early in the reading
period. Every piece submitted receives serious attention. Understand,
however, a poem arriving in my inbox on the last day will only get
those several readings in the same day instead of being spread out
over a few weeks.
Another reason I don’t make quick decisions is so
that I can better see how all the final-round poems might work
together. (And reading all the poems at the same time helps mitigate
any fluctuations of my mood.) Often, I make editorial suggestions
that I think will improve the poems I want to publish; I like to work
closely with the author. I am saddened when I have to turn away good
work, but I often send a personal note of encouragement. I do have
form responses, but they are tiered and tailored for often-seen
reasons. Because I hate receiving form responses full of
abstractions, I try to be a little more helpful to the authors I must
turn away. Occasionally, I’ll recommend other venues, if I
recognize the poem fits thE other magazine’s aesthetic better than
it does ours. I always welcome polite responses from the authors.
SQF:
Based on your experience as an editor, what have you learned about
writing?
JM:
One of the most important things I learned is to make sure my
personal submissions show a dynamic range of style, voice, and form
(consistent with the aesthetics of the venue). I cannot tell you how
many times I have seen little to no variation from one poem to the
next in a submission package from a particular author (and that’s
for every venue I have edited and poetry contest I have judged). I
recognize that sometimes it is like a stylistic signature, but most
often it is not. Editors want to see some range of style, and that’s
one reason you’ll often be asked to submit 3 to 5 poems.
SQF:
What one question on this topic do you wish I'd asked that I didn't?
And how would you answer it?
JM:
None at the moment.
Thank you, John. We all appreciate you
taking time from your busy schedule to participate in this project.
NEXT
POST: 6/6--Six Questions for Joseph Levens, Editor, The Summerset Review
