Dear Reader,
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of sitting on a panel at a writing conference with several other literary magazine editors. During the panel, one of my fellow editors suggested that our journals are meant to serve as the first step in establishing the next part of the literary canon. I'm paraphrasing here, but this editor seemed to believe that this was the primary purpose of the literary journal, and that all our decisions should be guided by this goal.
It was an interesting speech, but I don't necessarily agree.
I think it's undeniable that most innovative, groundbreaking work often appears in literary magazines years before it sees book publication or widespread acknowledgement, making the literary magazine the place to watch if you're interested in seeing the true cutting edge of literature. That said, "innovative" and "groundbreaking" works do not always become "canon," and I'm not sure I think they always should. I also think I recoil a bit at this idea partly because the word "canon" is so problematic to begin with—whose canon are we talking about, exactly?—and partly because I feel like arguing over the makeup of such a thing is work for critics and scholars, not writers and editors.
In any case, the goal of "establishing the next part of the canon" has never guided my decisions as an editor, and I remain unconvinced that it should.
As an editor, all I feel I can honestly do is to try and be sure that I'm selecting and publishing the best work I can find, according to my own obviously subjective tastes. For me, that means finding works which excite me on an intellectual or emotional level (especially in some new way), or that somehow change my understanding of what a story or essay or poem can be through structure, language, or some other element of craft. It means finding work that is accomplished and skillful, certainly, but also that is ambitious and daring, because what is the point of doing anything that is not ambitious and daring, at least on a personal level?
In Issue Four, those works include fiction from Cooper Renner, Chad Benson, Kate Petersen, and Lance Olsen (with art by Andi Olsen), as well as novel excerpts from Xiaoda Xiao and Ornela Vorpsi. You'll also find poetry from Arlene Ang, Stephen Dobyns, Judy Huddleston, and Keith Taylor, plus non-fiction from Brian Oliu and Melissa Pritchard.
In book reviews, we've got coverage of Translation is a Love Affair by Jacques Poulin, The Suburban Swindle by Jackie Corley, Girl Trouble by Holly Goddard Jones, The Southern Cross by Skip Horack, and The Halfway House by Guillermo Rosales, as well as a video review of The Bigness of the World by Lori Ostlund.
We're also happy to introduce our newly-minted Classic Reprints section, which will be appearing frequently in the months to come. This month, we have the honor of reprinting John Cheever's "The Fourth Alarm" alongside an introductory essay written by his son, Benjamin H. Cheever.
As always, thanks to all of our contributors for letting us publish their fine work. Thanks also to everyone who reads the magazine, everyone who sends us submissions, and of course everyone who takes the time to post about the issue to their blogs, Facebook, or anywhere else. Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Matt Bell
Editor
The Collagist