Six Questions for John Sibley Williams, Co-Editor, The Inflectionist Review

“The Inflectionist Review has a strong preference for non-linear work that carefully constructs ambiguity so that the reader can play an active role in the poem. In general, we commend the experimental, the worldly and universal, and eschew the inane, trendy, and overly personal. Work that reveals multiple layers with further readings. Though the editors have a special interest in shorter poems, we are open to longer works that adhere to our general philosophy. Multi-sectioned or thematically-linked poems are also accepted.” Read the complete guidelines here.

SQF: Why did you start this magazine?

John Sibley Williams: The Inflectionist Review was born from conversations between a few fellow poets, each believing that both extremes (overly narrative and overly experimental) carry the risk of being “poetry written more for the poet than the reader.” Of course, there are countless beautiful poems written in these styles, but there is a tendency for writers to write purely about themselves or to push boundaries in a way that exclude the reader. The middle ground is a place where each word means something to both writer and reader, where images can resonate across cultures, where interpretation is key. So TIR rather organically came together from these substantive talks.




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



JSW: Linguistic beauty, conceptual ambition, and emotional resonance. The best pieces amalgamate all three, with words that leap off or singe the edges of the page, ideas that speak to larger human concerns in unexpected ways, and images that carry me somewhere, that break me—into tears, into anger, into catharsis, into outright celebration.




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



JSW: Apart from obvious issues like sexism, racism, and other forms of prejudice, which one doesn’t see often in poetry but which sometimes rears its ugly head in subtle ways, the quickest way for work to be rejected is if it doesn’t conform to our rather straightforward guidelines. Strange fonts, incorrect number of poems, and submissions emailed rather than sent via our submission manager are all common issues. Also, as we read blindly, the poet’s name being included in the document is another telltale sign that he or she didn’t bother to read the guidelines. I hope this doesn’t sound like nitpicking, but publishing is based on mutual respect and appreciation. We hope submitters enjoy the journal, and we obviously love the work we publish. So when a submitter makes it obvious he or she did not read the guidelines, that presumed respect is broken.




SQF: Do you provide comments when you reject a submission?



JSW: If a submission comes close to publication, we often commend the poet and reference the piece that came closest. But, due to the number of submissions we receive, we usually don’t have the time to provide comments on rejected work.




SQF: Who are some of your favorite poets?



JSW: Oh boy, that’s always a question I fear. How does one list less than, say, fifty or a hundred? But if I narrow it down to poets whose collections came out in 2016, I’d say my favorites were Ocean Vuong’s Night Sky with Exit Wounds, Keith Leonard’s Ramshackle Ode, Safiya Sinclair’s Cannibal, Sjohnna McCray’s Rapture, Miriam Bird Greenberg’s In the Volcano's Mouth, Jamaal May’s The Big Book of Exit Strategies, and Francine J. Harris’ Play Dead.




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

JSW: Do you have any tips for poets interested in submitting to The Inflectionist Review? Glad you asked.

Although this may seem like clichéd advice, poets should definitely read sample issues before submitting to us. Many journals have broad tastes or rotating editors or panels of students whose personal preferences vary greatly and overlap in unexpected places. However, TIR has a tight focus and only two like-minded editors. Our mission statement is clear. Every issue we receive many hundreds of “shotgun” submissions from poets who obviously are not familiar with the work we publish. As a writer myself, I get that approach. One cannot read every journal out there. And it often works with the kinds of journals I referenced earlier. But not with The Inflectionist Review. Familiarity with the journal is usually evident within the first few lines or stanzas. So, apart from formatting to the guidelines, the most important tip I can give is to enjoy a past issue or two and see if your work’s themes, structures, and styles communicate with our vision.

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

Six Questions for A. Molotkov, Co-Editor, The Inflectionist Review

“Inflectionist Review has a strong preference for non-linear work that carefully constructs ambiguity so that the reader can play an active role in the poem. In general, we commend the experimental, the worldly and universal, and eschew the inane, trendy, and overly personal. Work that reveals multiple layers with further readings. Though the editors have a special interest in shorter poems, we are open to longer works that adhere to our general philosophy. Multi-sectioned or thematically-linked poems are also accepted.” Read the complete guidelines here.

SQF: Why did you start this magazine?

A Molotkov: My co-editor John Sibley Williams and I felt that one’s role in the literary world need not be limited to writing. Much is to be said for supporting others and building connections. Many writers serve as editors, which helps foster an understanding between the two roles.

As a reader, I see much editorial consistency in some journals and almost none in others. John and I were motivated to support a particular aesthetic that we find vital and important, rather than trying to support the broader crowd of poets writing in English. In some way, it’s a magazine for poets who follow recipes that we believe in (as well as for poems that simply blow us over, no matter the recipe). www.inflectionist.com provides more detail about our aesthetic – and the five issues we’ve published so far.


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

AM: A spark – something unpredictable that breaks me, puzzles me, enlightens me. Emotion. Relevance to others.


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

AM: Typos or grammar errors, macho maleness, religious fervor, self-involvement, or a complete lack of understanding of contemporary poetry. John and I are generally not into names – place names, name names, mythological or historical names. (I’m curious, by the way, if his answers will be completely different from mine.) Our preference is for poems that stand on their own, unsupported by external references. Tasteful exceptions can be, of course, quite wonderful. Poems about writing poetry need an extra-special twist to sound fresh.


SQF: Do you provide comments when you reject a submission?



AM: We will do so occasionally if the poem almost makes it, or if the submitter is someone we know well. I don't think it’s productive to comment on all rejections, as so much of it comes down to taste. No one needs a lecture from a poet who writes in a style different from one’s own. 




SQF: Who are some of your favorite poets?



AM: Among the classics, Mikhail Lermontov, Evgeni Esenin and several other poets I admired in my youth back in Russia – also Paul Éluard, Paul Celan, W.S. Merwin, Mark Strand, William Stafford, Rumi. Among the contemporaries: Annie Lighthart, Beth Bachmann, Laura Kasischke, Ocean Vuong, Carl Adamshick, Sara Eliza Johnson, Nick Flynn and many, many more. I’m ashamed that I’m leaving out many I admire just as much. And of course, my co-editor, John Sibley Williams.




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

AM: First of all, Jim, thank you so much for this refreshing opportunity to think about editing a journal from these new angles. And thank you, reader, for sticking with us.

Perhaps the last question should be: how to deal with rejections? What does a rejection mean? Some friends confess that they give up after five or ten, while to me it’s normal procedure to keep sending the same story or poem to 150 journals. A checklist one might consider when rejections pile up:

1. Have you read 100 (poetry) books in the last 5 years, most of them contemporary?
2. Have you written consistently for at least 3-5 years?
3. Do you have a critique group?

If the answer to all of the above is Yes, then keep reading and writing and sending your work and revising and ignoring rejections. Many editors are picky, including these two. Still, we mean everyone well and appreciate the effort of all poets, even those who don't make it into Inflectionist Review. Creative connections are randomly made. Literary value is more subjective than many folks seem to expect. One fosters and projects one’s literary voice in a busy world bursting with language.

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