This interview is provided for archival purposes. The listing is not currently active.
Q: Describe what you publish in 25 characters or less.
A: Imagination gumbo.
Q: What other current publications (or publishers) do you admire most?
A: A cappella Zoo, Bartleby Snopes, The New Yorker, PANK, Pear Noir!, Tin House, Johnny America, Harpur Palate, Jersey Devil Press, One Story, Clarkesworld, Glimmer Train
Q: If you publish writing, who are your favorite writers? If you publish art, who are your favorite artists?
A: Haruki Murakami, Neil Gaiman, Kurt Vonnegut, Walter Moers, Franz Kafka, Gabriel García Márquez, George Orwell, Paul Auster, Edgar Allan Poe, Miguel de Cervantes, Charles Dickens, Philip K. Dick, Ray Bradbury, Ryunosuke Akutagawa, Mikhail Bulgakov, Harlan Ellison, Jonathan Swift, Kobo Abe, Jorge Luis Borges, A.A. Garrison (and not just because we've published him!)
Q: What sets your publication apart from others that publish similar material?
A: Probably nothing. But then again, maybe everything. It seems a lot of publications are trying to focus on specific, preexisting genres, themes, or target audiences, a strategy which can really limit a publication's possibilities (and allow for some pretty questionable material to get published). Our goal is to create a new aesthetic, one merging the weird and the literary in ways no one has ever seen. As that aesthetic comes to fruition, we always keep handy the one phrase that should, without question, be the fiction editor's motto/creed/mantra/chief principle of life and reason to be--that is, story comes first. While we appreciate poetic language, detailed descriptions, tangential trains of thought, and off-the-wall characters and settings, if a story has no plot, no depth, no originality, and no way of engaging us as readers, then it's definitely not for us.
Q: What is the best advice you can give people who are considering submitting work to your publication?
A: Read at least two of the following things: our mission statement, our previous issues, or anything by Haruki Murakami (or, for that matter, Neil Gaiman).
Q: Describe the ideal submission.
A: It's tough to say. Honestly (and sorry if this seems like a bit of a cop-out), I'll just know it when I see it. But if I had to try narrowing things down, I'd say the ideal submission would not only be totally original and bursting with imagination, it would also grab me right from the beginning with memorable characters, sharp dialogue, and vivid (but concise) descriptions. It would also be flawless (or darn close to it), from a technical perspective. There would definitely be at least one speculative element to the story, to the point where I'm just dying to know what kind of weird scene I'm suddenly lost inside. And, of course, the ending would have a really great payoff--no cliche twists, nothing too predictable, nothing that drags on, nothing that feels rushed, and nothing that is unfaithful to the rest of the story.
Q: What do submitters most often get wrong about your submissions process?
A: Many submitters don't proofread, which is really a detriment to their chances of being published with us. They also don't read our mission statement, particularly the "Things We Don't Like" section, which clearly states that we aren't interested in creatures of someone else's imagination (e.g. zombies, dragons, mermaids, vampires, werewolves) or gratuitous mentions of present-day technology.
Q: How much do you want to know about the person submitting to you?
A: We like to know as much as necessary for a brief bio, but in truth, a writer's profession, publication credits, and education play no part in our opinion of his/her work. Simply put, we believe a good story is a good story, regardless of the writer's track record. So while cover letters and lists of previous publications may satisfy our curiosity, we make all decisions based solely on a story's merit. We are happy to publish new and established writers alike.
Q: If you publish writing, how much of a piece do you read before making the decision to reject it?
A: It depends. Most stories are read to the end, but sometimes we get stories with a lot of basic grammatical errors in the first few pages, causing me to feel sad and stop reading. Otherwise, I'll stop reading a story early on for one of two reasons: either it breaks one or more of our "Things We Don't Like" rules, or it does a really poor job of hooking me in the first couple of pages.
Q: What additional evaluations, if any, does a piece go through before it is accepted?
A: Our acceptance procedure is pretty straightforward. Joseph (our fiction editor) and I read each story and then discuss in detail the ones we like. For a given story, if we both agree that it is strange and original, engaging and memorable, somewhere in the ballpark of our typical story length, and written strongly and professionally, then we'll take it.
Q: What is a day in the life of an editor like for you?
A: Life is pretty busy with a day job, a girlfriend, bills, working on a writing career, freelance editing, an avid interest in film and literature (with an unprecedented number of still-as-of-yet-unwatched movies and unread books on the shelf), life's daily chores, and maintaining a website, so whenever I get a chance to read submissions, I usually take it!
Q: How important do you feel it is for publishers to embrace modern technologies?
A: While I'm not really a fan of modern technology in fiction (e.g. gratuitous mentions of intranets, iPlops and Goople searches), the web is definitely a wonderful forum for writers and readers to connect from all across the globe. While I feel somewhat sad that I missed out on the old school way of doing things (i.e. typewriters, print issues only, mail subscriptions, etc), I know that, in the age we live in, it's pretty unrealistic for a relatively new publication to have any chance of survival without being mostly (if not totally) web-based. Overall, I must say it's very exciting to know that, with the far-reaching power of email, I could receive submissions from writers in Japan, Ireland, Zimbabwe, and Bolivia in a matter of seconds.