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?
DISPLACED They called her aloof, impractical, clumsy, plain. It was, they
say, difficult for her not to fall in love.In spite, that is, of the first
coughs...
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