Editor Interview: Doubly Mad Journal

The number and diversity of publications that exist now could keep a reader occupied for weeks. Doubly Mad is itself an example of this diverse growth. I tend to prefer smaller journals that are working to establish their own niche. The major journals do not offer work that resonates with me. The issues of Poetry, for instance, tend be disappointing. That said, my co-editor, Ruth Dandrea, has a real fondness for Alaska Quarterly Review. I enjoy a publications called Nine Mile Magazine, Hole in the Head Review, and also Rust+Moth. They favor poetry that is weighted toward strong use of imagery, with a musicality to the language.

We publish poetry and fiction, and look for work that we feel transcends the individual in a certain way, while pushing the English language towards musicality. These are very general comments, and a lot can fall under the definition of "musicality." I do not necessarily look at work and ask myself, does this compare with what is popular in the moment? I believe the poets of earlier generations set the bar high for contemporary writers. Emily Dickinson's work should make any poet nervous. How can anything I write compare with that? The same goes for Whitman. As for 20th century masters, some of the poets I most admire--restricting myself to writers of English--are Theodore Roethke, James Wright, Marianne Moore, H.D., Galway Kinnell, Elizabeth Bishop, John Ashbery, Lucille Clifton, and Wanda Coleman. (This is a modestly eclectic group, a short list). What all of these poets have in common is a very exacting control of language and (for the most part) an aversion for cliche (sometimes Wright succumbs). I personally detest cliche use of language, and my co-editor Colleen Doody is even more exacting than I am. There is a lot of work now that does not appeal to us because it comes across as little more than advertisement sloganeering. We do not want poems that dwell excessively on the personal pronoun I.
As for short fiction, Ruth Dandrea has similar expectations. She does not tend to favor "genre" fiction (such as sci-fi), although any story which offers a compelling, empathetic look at a human life will get her attention.
I want to emphasize that what I have said is not a matter of maintaining a "tradition." The weight I placed, for example, on Dickinson and Whitman's poetry is not a matter of the "old masters doing it better." Rather, in both cases, the writing in question is both deeply felt and thought-provoking. It's not enough to have a skill at manipulating language in a pretty way. If underneath the rhetoric of the poem, its structure, its use of imagery, etc., there are commonplace ideas left unchanged or unexamined, we will not be (as) interested in the work.

Quite frankly, our publication is beautiful. If you've seen vintage copies of the journal Double Take, you will have some sense of what we are going for in terms of visual style.

I will say what most editors say: it helps to know your audience. If you've never seen/read Doubly Mad, there's no way to determine if your work is going to catch our attention.
That said, I'm realistic, and know there are so many publishing opportunities that reading every journal is difficult. At least follow our submission instructions.

We do not use Submittable, or other submission platforms, which means we rely on our email to communicate with contributors. Please add us to your contact list so our emails aren't blocked. Occasionally, people do not receive our emails because our address is flagged as spam, or blocked. Incidentally, we don't use Submittable because of the cost involved, and we don't believe contributors should have to pay to send us work. The argument has been made that the cost is equivalent (in some cases) to paying postage, but the beautiful thing about email is--IT'S FREE!

Cover letters are helpful, however, we do not read them until after we have reviewed the poetry/fiction. We are interested in publishing credentials because we like to know where to find more of a contributor's work. We do not need to know about your educational background. Neither of these (publishing history, education) influence our decision making process.

We read every piece we receive unless:
1. the piece contains offensive content (including bigotry, sexual discrimination, gratuitous depictions of sex or physical violence)
2. the piece is so riddled with cliche that we cannot bear to finish it. We are not masochistic. If the level of the writing we receive is poor, we will not afflict ourselves with the entire submission. We volunteer our time to carry out this project, and our time is valuable.

We review a contributor's published work, so knowing your website (if you have one) with a listing of your previous publications is helpful.

The three editors review all material. We look for consensus, however, if one of us is really taken by a piece, we can override a veto. This is rare.

We will proofread work for grammar and spelling mistakes, and do on occasion offer feedback, though it is rare. We do not tend to ask for re-writes. Work should be ready to print. We've turned down material that we enjoyed if we felt it could use more work. This happens more frequently with fiction than poetry. An ending won't seem to fit, or some element of plot or style seems disjointed.

We nominate for The Pushcart Prize.