Editor Interview: Setu

Q: Describe what you publish in 25 characters or less.

A: Life-affirming content.

Q: What other current publications (or publishers) do you admire most?

A: Spillwords.
Muse India.
Kitaab.
Confluence: south Asian perspectives.
The Statesman.
Scarlet Leaf Review.
Queen Mob's Teahouse.
The Blue Nib.
Every Day Poems.
Dissident Voice.
Cafe Dissensus.
Cold Noon.

Q: If you publish writing, who are your favorite writers? If you publish art, who are your favorite artists?

A: Rob Harle.
Scott Thomas Outlar.
Kelli J Gavin.
Padmaja Iyengar-Paddy
Gopal Lahiri.
J.S. Sarangi.
Abu Siddik.
Subash Chandra.
Rana Pratap Gill.
K.S. Mani Mani.
B.S. Tyagi.
Sanjeev Sethi.

Q: What sets your publication apart from others that publish similar material?

A: The bilingual journal (Hindi, English) ensures a welcoming home for the serious writings from across the world without sounding snooty, elitist or bit patronizing. The aim is to include liberal-democratic voices; promote pluralism and diversity in a divided world of politics.
Try to involve some of the happening authors as guest editors as well.
And publish many good returning authors without sacrificing quality.

Q: What is the best advice you can give people who are considering submitting work to your publication?

A: ---Please carefully read the guidelines.
Non-compliance leads to summary rejection.
---Send error-free, print-ready, wholesome content.
---Well-crafted pieces get an edge.
---Language-flow important.
---Fiction must be well delivered.

Q: Describe the ideal submission.

A: ---The one conforming to the guidelines and vision of the journal.
---One providing epiphanies most preferred.
---Form-content dialectics, must.
---Narcissism---big No.
---Social conscience---big Yes.

Q: What do submitters most often get wrong about your submissions process?

A: Many, in hurry, ignore guidelines.
Improper formatting.
The indifference to guiding framework does not impress the edit team.
They must respect the rules of engagement, like true professionals.

Q: How much do you want to know about the person submitting to you?

A: A brief account enough---not the intros that are longer than their submissions!
For us, current content should speak for itself, not the previous credits.

Q: If you publish writing, how much of a piece do you read before making the decision to reject it?

A: In entirety.
Many pieces might begin bit late but pick up speed mid-way.
And vice versa.
Good start, then losing steam.
So, in totality, we evaluate.

Q: What additional evaluations, if any, does a piece go through before it is accepted?

A: Peer review by editors.
In case of some perceptional difference, the same is referred to the editor-in-chief and one senior-most editor, for their views.
Once consensus reached, it is approved for publication.

Q: What is a day in the life of an editor like for you?

A: The reading is done in the evenings, as most are working professionals, employed in varied sectors of economies of their respective countries.
We do this as a service.
Sundays for mutual edit consultations.

Q: How important do you feel it is for publishers to embrace modern technologies?

A: It is already happening---and very liberating and democratic, modern technologies.
We cannot return to the Stone Age and must remain connected and networked in the digital world. No other option than a wide embracing of such technologies and social media in order to make a deeper penetration and wider outreach to the targeted audiences in the cyberspace.

Q: How much do you edit an accepted piece prior to publication?

A: Minor edits, in some cases---with approval from their authors.

Q: Do you nominate work you've published for any national or international awards?

A: We plan to do that soon.