I'm a subscriber as well and I thought this was a very fair summary and a good intro for those considering subscribing. The high proportion of translations is quite marked and I think you're right to point to their tendency to publish noticeably "literary" pieces, marked either by allusions or references to other (high) literature or by a lot of linguistic self-consciousness. This can seem pretty pretentious, but (from a UK lit-mag perspective) the unapologetic high-brow-ness is quite refreshing, and (appropriately, given their origins) more like a lot of French literary magazines.
This would be interesting to know, but I don't see how the author of this essay could possibly find out. I don't think many (any?) of the most high profile magazines publish these statistics.
Apologies for my late reply. I am not inclined towards offering these statistics. CLMP (Council of Literary Magazines and Presses) has a Directory of publishers wherein these statistics might exist. They used to solicit that info from each publisher. I will say that if it was The Paris Review of the 1990's when writers were published because they knew someone on staff, it wouldn't really be worth it for me to write about them. It may be hard to get into, and there may still be some writers who have work solicited by the editors, but the challenge is worth the effort if you write what they demonstrate they like.
I'm a subscriber as well and I thought this was a very fair summary and a good intro for those considering subscribing. The high proportion of translations is quite marked and I think you're right to point to their tendency to publish noticeably "literary" pieces, marked either by allusions or references to other (high) literature or by a lot of linguistic self-consciousness. This can seem pretty pretentious, but (from a UK lit-mag perspective) the unapologetic high-brow-ness is quite refreshing, and (appropriately, given their origins) more like a lot of French literary magazines.
I think you should include what % of the pieces they publish come from unsolicited submissions.
This would be interesting to know, but I don't see how the author of this essay could possibly find out. I don't think many (any?) of the most high profile magazines publish these statistics.
Apologies for my late reply. I am not inclined towards offering these statistics. CLMP (Council of Literary Magazines and Presses) has a Directory of publishers wherein these statistics might exist. They used to solicit that info from each publisher. I will say that if it was The Paris Review of the 1990's when writers were published because they knew someone on staff, it wouldn't really be worth it for me to write about them. It may be hard to get into, and there may still be some writers who have work solicited by the editors, but the challenge is worth the effort if you write what they demonstrate they like.