Q: Describe what you publish in 25 characters or less.
A: creative writing on art
Q: What other current publications (or publishers) do you admire most?
A: MacQueen's Quinterly, Flash Boulevard, Maissoneuve, Bending Genres, Brilliant Flash Fiction, Miramichi Reader, The Journal of Radical Wonder, Cleaver, Unbroken, New Flash Fiction Review, Geist, Subterrain
Q: If you publish writing, who are your favorite writers? If you publish art, who are your favorite artists?
A: short stories: Pamela Painter, Francine Witte, Kathryn Kulpa, Meg Pokrass, John Gould, Dave Eggers, Finnian Burnett, Miranda July, Zsuzsi Gartner, Crad Kilodney, Haruki Murakami; poetry: Leonard Cohen, E.E. Cummings, Sharon Olds, Lynn Crosbie, Raymond Souster, Bob Dylan, Lucinda Williams, Alexis Rhone Fancher, Tennessee Williams; prose on art: Camille Paglia, Julian Barnes, Michael Kimmelman, Sister Wendy, Robert Hughes
Q: What sets your publication apart from others that publish similar material?
A: All of our published work is ekphrastic, loosely defined. We publish creative writing- poetry, fiction, and nonfiction- inspired by visual art.
Q: What is the best advice you can give people who are considering submitting work to your publication?
A: I'm most interested in seeing how art can inspire, inform, renew, and change a person's thinking and writing. Go with it. See where it can take you. Don't be too heavy handed about describing an art work, unless it comes naturally to the piece. We want to expand our fiction and especially love flash and micro. The Ekphrastic Review grew organically into a poetry-heavy publication, because I am passionate about poetry and because the submissions of poetry have been outstanding. But it was also founded with hopes for expanding the world of literary art writing. In my opinion, most writing about art today is pretentious, academic grandstanding or theoretical inanity. We've lost ways for ordinary people to engage with visual art in a contemplative, curious way through writing. I'm seeking beautiful, provocative, surprising insights stirred by paintings and other art. Literary, poetic, creative nonfiction if you will. If it is good writing and doesn't fit into other publications about art, try us. We aren't the right destination for academic essays about art- we want the writing itself to shine as much as the information it addresses.
We want more translations! We are interested in reading ekphrastic writing from all over the world. If you are able to translate that work into English for us from another language, the chances are very high we will choose your submission. (You must have permission of the poet you are translating into English to run their work, if selected, and share their bio with us as well, unless the work is in the public domain.)
Q: Describe the ideal submission.
A: Submission in the body of the email. You may ALSO attach a PDF or Word document if form or italics might be affected in the body of email. Experimental form is tricky to reproduce online- we don't want to censor any inspiration, but just a heads up that even if we love it, we may not be able to replicate it, so work that is mostly flush left is preferred. Intuitively organized content. A brief third person bio. Titles of and links to referenced images. Brief cover letter. A personal note. Keep it simple. Strong writing. Must be about visual art! We get a huge number of submissions that are not inspired by visual art or about art at all. We are a niche publication and only consider ekphrastic works.
Q: What do submitters most often get wrong about your submissions process?
A: Work that is completely unrelated to art has no place at The Ekphrastic Review, no matter how brilliant it is! If the link is subtle, that's okay, but please let me know what it is and how it informed the piece. Do not send pretentious academic art theory, "critical theory," or deconstruction nonsense. We want prose that is informative, insightful, personal, unusual, and/or engages with art and its stories in interesting ways. Don't send anti-political or anti-religion rants. If those subjects evolve naturally and intelligently within a work, that is fine, but we are a place that fosters unity, diverse perspectives, and nuance, not the op-ed page for a current events paper.
Q: How much do you want to know about the person submitting to you?
A: Credits from other journals tell me nothing about the quality of the piece, whether they are from the New Yorker or Ten Stapled Xeroxes. But a list of some kind does tell me that you are active in your writing. No one will be chosen or disqualified because of a list or lack thereof, however. Tell me something personal and interesting about your latest visit to a gallery, art in your home, or how art changed your writing.
Q: If you publish writing, how much of a piece do you read before making the decision to reject it?
A: Our editors do all entries the service of reading them completely.
Q: What additional evaluations, if any, does a piece go through before it is accepted?
A: I have a real penchant for interesting pieces, and will sometimes choose something that needs work because it gives a unique take or because it is inspired by an unexpected artwork. How much "back and forth" or editing work it will take is also a consideration. I don't like to make radical edits to pieces, not just because my own time is limited, but because I respect a writer's voice and want to keep their work in tact as much as possible. Revising to strengthen or to correct errors is one thing, but revising to impose my own preferences on a piece is something I try to avoid.
Q: What is a day in the life of an editor like for you?
A: We have several editors now, and how they read and choose is entirely up to them. Incoming submissions are sent randomly among us. For the most part, I read submissions in chronological order of receipt. I read for several hours a day, every day, using the months that we don't receive new submissions to catch up on the backlog. I read the entire submission and then make a decision one way or another. It is a simple mathematical reality with the volume we receive that most submissions must be returned. We want to support the voices of "the ekphrastic family," those writers who are longterm, regular readers and contributors, providing them a forum to frequently share their work. We also value new voices and want to publish those who find us and encourage them to become part of our mission. We publish emerging voices, disenfranchised voices, young voices, diverse voices, global voices. We hope to strike a balance between showcasing our loyal base and new contributors, too.
Q: How important do you feel it is for publishers to embrace modern technologies?
A: I appreciate all the options available to us, but no one has time for all of them. We choose what works and learn as we go. I am pro-innovation.
Q: How much do you edit an accepted piece prior to publication?
A: I'll inform a writer of any major changes, or ask if these changes can be made to accommodate my editorial preferences in order to publish the work. That said, for the most part, if it needs major changes it's not finished yet. Typos happen and I don't get hysterical about them, within reason. Human error happens and I accommodate it because you will no doubt accommodate mine. That said, sloppy, unedited manuscripts are not welcome. We do get submissions from people around the world writing in English who have another first language, and I think this is bold. If the piece fits, I'll invest some time in minor edits. I try to avoid changes that are not required but simply suit my personal preference. I respect authors' work, intentions, and creative choices.
Q: Do you nominate work you've published for any national or international awards?
A: We nominate for Best of the Net, Pushcart Prize, Best Microfiction, and Best Small Fictions. We hope to start nominating for other awards and prizes.