I recently decided to create a new online poetry magazine,
Brusque.
Now, you might be thinking "Why the hell do we need another literary magazine?" and/or "How many projects can Stevie edit?" -- And you might have some valid points there, but I'm trying to do something a little different with Brusque.
- It's going to be short enough for a reasonably patient person to read in 1 sitting. 3-5 poets per issue, 10 poems max.
- Barring personal emergencies, I aim to respond to all submissions within a week, most within 2.
- I will provide "real talk" responses (which means a range from scathing to loving responses). Poetry submissions will be responded to honestly and specifically. Sometimes submission responses will be praiseful, sometimes snarky, sometimes scathing, sometimes indifferent, etc.
The last item might need a little explanation. Both as a poet and as an editor of a couple publications, I am really tired of form rejections and acceptances. As a poet, if there's an editor that really dislikes everything about my work, I want to know, so that I can quit wasting my time. If I'm one of the final cuts for a publication, I'd also like to know that, so that I make sure to try them again with new work. On one hand, many publications have tiered systems of form rejections, so you can sort of figure out where you stand with them. On the other hand, why not just tell people where they stand in a clear way? The form rejections are so nebulous and useless. Also, as an editor, I have had a really bizarre amount of people perpetually submitting poems to me with glaring grammatical problems, zero images or hints of poetry, and just flat out crazy ramblings. Basically, this is just my attempt to cut part of the bullshit out of lit mag submissions.