Comments on: The Kind of Poetry Reviews We Publish in Magma

By: Ian Gregson

Ian Gregson — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:17:22 +0000

It was an excellent idea to find a reviewer based outside the UK. Far too much reviewing is sycophantic and works to police the established hierarchies. There is a disquieting amount of reviewing which doesn’t even evaluate, but is merely explicatory and evades the issue of quality altogether – which is a disservice to the reader who is not helped to choose amongst available titles. But none of this is surprising, considering that those of us who have written honestly about overrated poets come to be regarded as stubbornly negative, because our praise of emerging and underrated poets arouses less comment.

By: Alison Brackenbury

Alison Brackenbury — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:34:48 +0000

I think your policy of finding reviewers who don’t know the poet reviewed is an exemplary one – if at times, clearly, very difficult to achieve.

By: Mignon Ariel King

Mignon Ariel King — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:38:03 +0000

I have never left the East Coast of the USA, so I would have no clue what is going on in poetry around the world if it weren’t for online poetry sites and book reviewers. I say, the more you can spread the word about books, the better for those of us who want to read something other than that which local bookstores deem worthy of note. After all, they don’t carry Magma, so I wouldn’t even know you existed without this site, much less be familiar with new poets outside of greater Boston who are not reviewed on the Internet.

By: Elizabeth Rimmer

Elizabeth Rimmer — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:12:00 +0000

I like reviews, so long as they are informative as well as passing judgement. I was out of poetry for a while, and reviews help me know what I missed, and what’s going on in other parts of the world. I’d like to make a case, on this basis, for including a sort of ‘best of the rest’ page of short reviews which simply mention what’s in the book, and why it might be worth looking at.
Otherwise I’d say your policy makes the best of a very complicated job.

By: Stephanie Norgate

Stephanie Norgate — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:13:47 +0000

Reviews are effective or not depending on how well read the reviewer is and how much close attention they are willing to give the book under review. As reviewers receive little in recompense (some magazines pay nothing now), they must wish to review because of an authentic engagement with poetry. I frequently advise MA in Creative Writing students to read the reviews in Poetry Review, Magma, Poetry London, The North etc. not in order to play up to reviewers when they write but to discover the kind of artistic issues poets and critics debate. Like your other correspondents, I also read the poems first and the reviews second; of course, poetry itself is always more urgent than articles about poetry. Nevertheless, it’s fascinating to discover what others think of the books you’re reading (and writing) and is akin to having a conversation with others who care about the work, whether you agree with them not. I don’t think we can do without this stimulus.

By: Sophia Brookes

Sophia Brookes — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:51:42 +0000

Like Mr Brown above, I also tend to skip the reviews in favour of the poetry. This isn’t any reflection on the quality of Magma’s reviews, I skip them in Poetry Review too. When I see pages and pages of reviews in a poetry magazine I do feel slightly cheated.

By: Richard Brown

Richard Brown — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:01:18 +0000

My response won’t be the kind you’ll want to hear, I’m sure, but I’m one of those people who buy Magma for its poetry, not its reviews. I don’t read the latter because they mean little to me unless I’ve read the poetry book being reviewed. Then it might be of interest – but how often would that be the case? More poetry and less reviews, please.

Having said that, it’s obviously important for the writers concerned to have their work noticed in this way. Maybe reviews are mainly for them, plus librarians and specialists, rather than the general reader?