Read on Twitter
Poetry Magazine’s latest misstep was preventable.
It’s becoming clearer and clearer we need a new way to address the editorial process.
My restorative editorial process (under construction) is compromised of three elements:
1. Transparency
2. Equity
3. Radical Readership
It’s becoming clearer and clearer we need a new way to address the editorial process.
My restorative editorial process (under construction) is compromised of three elements:
1. Transparency
2. Equity
3. Radical Readership
1. Transparency
The writer has a right to know who will be reviewing their work AND the editors have a right to know whose work they are reading or considering giving a platform. The writer agrees to provide relevant info and the editor agrees to contact writer w/ any concerns.
The writer has a right to know who will be reviewing their work AND the editors have a right to know whose work they are reading or considering giving a platform. The writer agrees to provide relevant info and the editor agrees to contact writer w/ any concerns.
With greater transparency comes greater accountability. I’m not suggesting using transparency as a tool to completely remove cis-White straight writers from opportunities completely, but use it as a way to actively pursue equity, which will naturally mean that..
historically over-represented populations will become the minority while underrepresented voices become the majority—for awhile.
We aren’t aiming for equality, we’re aiming for equity—the active support of a system that recognizes that an even playing field isn’t possible rn.
We aren’t aiming for equality, we’re aiming for equity—the active support of a system that recognizes that an even playing field isn’t possible rn.
Imagine a seesaw.
You can’t place an elephant on one end and a bird on the other and expect it to balance out. Either you need another elephant or a crap ton of birds.
That’s literature. There’s been a huge elephant on side for centuries and now we need a crap ton of birds.
You can’t place an elephant on one end and a bird on the other and expect it to balance out. Either you need another elephant or a crap ton of birds.
That’s literature. There’s been a huge elephant on side for centuries and now we need a crap ton of birds.
I personally have no issue w/ telling readers that one of my goals is to lift up the voices of those that have been underrepresented on all fronts of American life.
I don’t know why any editor would be afraid to agree.
I don’t know why any editor would be afraid to agree.
2. Equity
In recognition of the centuries-long erasure of Black, Indigenous, Asian, queer, disabled, and atypical voices from the American canon—a journal or magazine agrees to enforce equitable practices including:
In recognition of the centuries-long erasure of Black, Indigenous, Asian, queer, disabled, and atypical voices from the American canon—a journal or magazine agrees to enforce equitable practices including:
The hiring and professional development of people from underrepresented backgrounds in prep for top-tier positions; the retainer of BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ consultants w/ direct experience w/ community organizing and literature...
(I use BIPOC in this instance b/c I am referring to Black AND Indigenous AND Asian AND all the folx who aren’t cis-White identifying.)
Equitable practices cont’: the creation and industry standard use of an equity document akin to the Chicago Style Manual or AP Style Guide—but for identifying racism or sexism lacking equitable context, plagiarism, and appropriation; the annual reportage of representation.
None of those suggestions are easy and I’m sure a couple are flawed, but I share them as conversation starters.
3. Radical Readership
This is perhaps the most difficult b/c it requires every literary journal, mag, or industry-pillar to agree to upending the status quo.
3. Radical Readership
This is perhaps the most difficult b/c it requires every literary journal, mag, or industry-pillar to agree to upending the status quo.
Journals & magazines herald what makes them different, with founders often feeling as though they are, in some way, upending the status quo. Some want to open to EVERYONE, believing that this is the most equitable way. Others want to emphasize “quality” or “talent.”
What few journals or mags recognize is that their opinions of what is equitable or of quality is often based on a biased canon that has been the standard for American literature since our country’s inception. To work against that prejudice requires consistent and vigilant work.
Across the board, editors, who are always readers first, must agree to look farther than the lines on the page to determine if an author or an author’s work is right for publication.
They must be willing to ask questions with answers both on the page and off.
They must be willing to ask questions with answers both on the page and off.
Example questions include: Is this author telling a story that doesn’t co-opt anyone’s narrative unnecessarily? Is this author someone with whom I feel confident in representing and supporting in a public sphere? Is the content unnecessarily incendiary?
Does this author have a history of harm either on the page or off? Is this author someone I want to be associated with personally or professionally? What biases am I bringing to this reading and how can I combat them?
The questions could go on and on and they would never be enough, but they’d be a beginning.
Until we are willing to approach contemporary lit with the same urgency as we approach our country’s racist and problematic policies and structures, we will not see REAL representation.
Until we are willing to approach contemporary lit with the same urgency as we approach our country’s racist and problematic policies and structures, we will not see REAL representation.
As writers, we guide the American consciousness, documenting the various truths of our era. In this era, it is critical that we move away from post-modern criticism that separates the writer from the writing and lean into restorative equity as lens for critique.
We can’t afford to look away anymore.
