One of the most important and prestigious magazines around, Poetry London, are looking for a new editor. Out of curiosity, I had a quick look at their job description and noticed the following requirement...
"An established reputation as a poet, with at least a first collection already published or under contract".
Is it essential for editors to be poets themselves? What do you think?
It’s been a while since I read Chris Edgoose’s admirable and enticing
review for The Friday Poem, here, of Geraldine Clarkson’s second full
collection, Med...
Don't think it's relevant. I suppose they just want an indication of commitment. Editors aren't always poets. You need to prove yourself as a discerning reader too.
ReplyDeleteHi Maria,
DeleteThanks for commenting!
Yes, I agree 100%. Some of the best editors aren't poets, of course, but they'd have to prove themselves in different ways.
This is an interesting question Matthew. I guess being published gives an editor credibility, although I think an academic in the field of contemporary poetry would have similar authority. It must be an incredibly tough job reading so much, at speed, and doing so with discernment - I’m not sure being a poet guarantees that kind of skill. Maybe there should be an Emerging Editors scheme like the Ledbury Emerging Critics to provide training and encourage under-represented groups.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, Chris. Yes, I was very interested to notice this requirement. Charles Monteith, perhaps the best known poetry editor in the U.K. in the second half of the 20th century, wasn't a poet, of course, but maybe he's an exception.
Delete