Editor Interview: The Muleskinner Journal

Voices that move us

We like everyone. We really do. But a special shout out to Chestnut Review and Black Fork Review. We hosted a poetry reading together at AWP this year, and the editors, readers, and authors were amazing.

I like Thomas McGuane, Louise Erdrich, Barry Lopez, and every author I've ever worked with, either through Muleskinner, or at Bread Loaf or Napa Valley.

Two things separate us: (1) our publishing process. We publish live on our website as we accept items. When we publish a new piece (pretty much weekly), we send an e-mail to our subscribers asking them to read it, and also post it on social media. In this way, the author gets a few days in the spotlight. At the end of the themed submission period, we then compile and publish a completed journal. And, (2) the personal attention we give every submission, every query, every rejection (we don't use templates) and every piece we accept. We truly love doing this, and I think it shows.

Make it distinctive. Make sure it's "done." Follow our submission guidelines.

We like to laugh and we like to cry, but we are hard nuts to crack. Any submission that makes us laugh out loud or choke up, just a little, is what we are looking for. It'll make our day.

The most common error that submissions make is trying to take on our theme too directly or too literally. Our themes are writing prompts. If our theme is "mirrors," and your first sentence is "mirror, mirror on the wall," we may not make it to the second sentence.

It's a small world. We like, but do not request, cover letters, and we publish short bios. I think our readers like hearing about where you live, and where you've been published before. The former helps us build connection and community. The latter helps promote those publications as well as our own.

In general, we read every piece all the way through. We sometimes suggest revisions or edits that we think can help a piece with great potential. If we didn't read everything, all the way through, we might miss that opportunity.

Our editorial approach is very straightforward. We have eight editors and we all read everything. We meet every week, and editors bring forward pieces they want to champion. We have wonderful discussions. We laugh, cry, and sometimes get angry. And we reach consensus.

In addition to Muleskinner, I work with Los Angeles County's Anti-Racism, Diversity and Inclusion Initiative where I focus on bringing together various County departments and community-based organizations to help prevent transition age youth and older adults from becoming homeless. It is hard and sometimes frustrating work that is made palatable by the hour or two per day I spend with the beautiful work we receive. I also golf.

We very rarely edit poetry. We assume every word and every comma sent to us is as intended, and complete. We sometimes edit prose, mostly for clarity, sometimes to bring the story or an aspect of the story, forward. We do edit for typos, and too many are cause for rejection, as we try to assume that what folks send us is complete. All edits, however minor, must be approved by the author.

We nominate for awards.

We have a tip jar.

We are neolithic, but we are trying to get better. We inexpertly stumble through social media, and we will soon try our hand at podcasts, more public readings, and anything we can think of to get more eyes on the amazing work we publish.