Editor Interview: The Mersey Review

Wonderful, weird snippets

I'm a big fan of Split Lip, SmokeLong, Passages North, Baltimore Review, Milk Candy Review, Occulum, Pithead Chapel -- the list could go on.

We publish both! For writers: Lydia Davis, Roberto Bolaño, George Saunders, Oisín Fagan, Clarice Lispector, Anne Carson, Tomas Tranströmer.
For artists: Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele, David Hockney, Marlene Dumas, Grayson Perry, Bridget Riley, Kay Nielsen.

I feel that, other than designs and names, most publications are similar in that we're all just looking for the best writing/art out there. I like to think we keep things interesting -- I'm not against traditional writing by any means, but I do have a soft spot for the experimental (be that in form or style). And we have a little interview series that every contributor can take part in, if they wish, so there's that too.

Just make sure the piece is the very best you can make it. If something doesn't enthrall or wow you, it won't do the same for me. (Also, in prose, opening lines are very important -- I always read the whole piece, but I do believe opening lines set the tone for the rest of the narrative).

One that has followed the guidelines -- even loosely! -- and gives me something that makes me want to read it again, immediately.

Quite a few submissions come in with multiple stories/poems attached -- we only consider one piece per genre, per issue. Art is different, we consider up to 5 works -- but, even then, we still receive submissions with more than 5 attachments.

I don't really care about a formal cover letter, a simple, "Hi, I did this, thought you might like it!" is enough. We do ask for a third-person bio with each submission, but that's more for ease should a piece be accepted -- The Mersey Review has published a few first-time authors in just our first three issues, so credits don't play much of a part, it's really down to whether the writing/art captures me enough.

I do read everything start-to-finish, often more than once, but I do feel that (generally) I can tell within the first few lines whether I'll enjoy it. Writing style definitely plays a big part in what The Mersey Review publishes -- I find that I can struggle to overcome a flat authorial voice, even if the narrative is functionally impressive.

The only other evaluation, beyond whether I like a piece, is how many pieces from each category have I already given a provisional 'maybe' to. I have settled on a maximum 4-5 pieces from each category, per issue, so whittling down those 'maybes' can be a decent challenge.

I compile every received submission into a spreadsheet as they come in. Generally, I will wait until submissions are closed to begin reading, but this isn't always the case. When reading the submissions, I will give them initial tags (most often 'maybe', or 'decline'), and once I have a batch of those labelled 'decline' I will write up the emails for those submitters and update the spreadsheet accordingly. The same goes for 'acceptances' and the 'maybes' that become 'acceptances'.
It sounds rather clinical when it's laid out like that, but the magic is between the lines!

Most of the time, I don't do any formal editing -- the pieces The Mersey Review receives are always a really high standard of finish. However, if I spot something -- big or small -- that I'd like to change/amend, I always consult with the writer. This is only with pieces that have already been accepted, so if the writer in question doesn't like my suggestion, then that's entirely up to them -- I am always happy to publish their writing as is, I would never retract an offer of publication based on that.

We are planning to! Our first issue only came out in December, so once nominations come back around, we'll be looking to put pieces forward for Best Microfiction, Best of the Net, and The Pushcart Prize!