Not quite…but:

Check out new portable document format chapbooks by Adam Fell & Nate Slawson.

Become a fan of H_NGM_N on Facebook.

Be ready to send us your full-length poetry manuscripts.

Nate Pritts via the Writer’s Digest blog.

As the editor of H_NGM_N, an online journal of poetry and prose, what do you look for in poetry submissions? 

Gosh, I guess that’s hard to define but I know it when I see it.  I’m looking for poems that are looking for me.  I mean, first, I expect a certain level of competency and professionalism in the submission; H_NGM_N has guidelines for a reason.  And if anyone wants to know what kinds of poems we publish, the best thing they could do is read the poems in our nine issues, our various chapbooks and side projects.

We get some poems that have no chance; they show no knowledge of the kinds of work we champion, no attention to language or craft, have nothing to really say.  Most of what we get is pretty solid, though, and so we have to make some tough calls.  I’m looking for something that knocks my head off with its energy and this could come from the compelling nature of the linguistic utterance, it could come from a sparkly and brilliant image, it could come from anywhere.  Though we’ve been labeled as a home for experimental poetry, I’m not happy with that.  My models are Renaissance sonneteers, or Coleridge saying “O!” every time he got to see the sunrise.  I think a poem is what one beating heart can say to another beating heart in words.

Click here to keep reading.

Nate Pritts from the new issue of RECONFIGURATIONS.

Randall Jarrell is one of my heroes. His criticism was based on his “taste” - which was of course refined & honed & very articulate - but still his taste, his preferences, his gut feeling.

I think one problem with contemporary reviews has to do with the fact that the reviewer doesn’t have enough personality, enough of a stake in the review itself. I’m not concerned with the “exuberant praise” found in some reviews as much as I am that I can’t tell - from one review to the other - who has written it.

Click here to read the whole shebang!

Nate Pritts talking about H_NGM_N at the PANK blog:

1. How does an interactive poetry journal differ from a poetry journal?

The short answer here is to say – in lots of ways that I haven’t figured out yet.  I think one way has to do with dissemination.  If you have a poem published in a print journal, you have to hand or airlift the entire journal to a friend if you want them to read your poem.  And maybe that friend will read other poems in the journal.  With an interactive poetry journal, you can send your friend the direct link to your poem.  And maybe that friend will read other poems in the journal.  I think, since an interactive poetry journal is ostensibly free, the possibilities for promotion are increased – I can tell you that you should read H_NGM_N & give you the link to do so all at once.  And one contributor can post a direct link on his or her Facebook wall, or tweet about it, & you can then simply click & find yourself delivered unto the page itself.

Maybe the apparent immediacy of online publication provides a better network of energies – ie, if you like a poem of mine in an online journal, it easy to find other poems of mine fairly quickly.  It’s also easy to find my email address & write to me to tell me you liked it.  I think, in some way I can’t quite define, online publishing humanizes the process.

Click here to read the rest of the interview.

Heather Momyer   

Claim 1. There is a convergence between art and reality and this is an argument that has existed for quite some time. Claim 2. All speaking and personal communications are creative and authorial acts. Claim 3. All forms of listening and spectatorship of personal communicative acts are interpretive acts. It thus follows that the world of personal and biographical and therefore real is not completely distinct from authorship, creativity, and the therefore fictional world. All communicative acts become part of a body of work and are fair game when it comes to usage for interpretation. I say this knowing that a piece of creative writing does not necessarily correspond directly to events in the author’s life and I do not attempt to deny the author’s creativity and ability to imagine. However, arguing that biographical and personal readings limit the possibilities of a text is invalid because I believe that all interpretations and readings limit the possibility of a text. The personal reading is not alone in this weakness. This argument is made through a study of the work of Rebbecca Brown and through an analysis of my own personal reading experience. The following is also a love letter. I begin…

Click here to continue reading in H_NGM_N #9.