Views From Abroad: International Journal a Mixed Bag
For this very reason, the American journal culture is pervasive, and its quirky aesthetic quality have become the bar that all others journals are measured by. Meanwhile European journals are often forgotten, and subsequently we lose out on what they have to offer. Of the dozen or so writers I’ve cornered or contacts and asked the simple question ‘name a European journal’, most have given a similar answer: that nothing interesting is going on in the European literary journal scene. Why should they know any?
Which is a shame really, because out there are these rare EU birds, and they have a different song to sing. This in mind, I’m starting a new series of EU journal reviews for this site. My hope is to give a bit of an overview on what’s going on this side of the pond, from the old European behemoths down to the small, niche literary ‘zines.
Of the European journals I’ve contacted to review, Tears in the Fence was the first to slide through my mail slot. One of the oldest independent journals in Europe, there’s history between the covers of Tears. The journal has received fairly universal praise, so I was very excited to read their latest issue, number 56.
Tears in the Fence is a journal that has at its heart a love of poetry. For some time now (Tears was founded in 1984) the journal has been a symposium for poetic thought and practice. Deeply into the poetics game, this is where the strength of the journal resides: the editorial team obviously takes time in choosing pieces that attempt experimental forms while also representing classic styles that have been shunned by the majority of contemporary journals.
This acceptance of both old and new style puts Tears in a strange category–it isn’t simply a showcase for new and innovative talent, it is also a journal that celebrates historical perspectives and practices–a menagerie of poetics if you will. Readers of experimental journals will find many things to like in Tears, as will those who generally read from the so-called ‘great tradition’.
Tears in the Fence also features essays and reviews in every issue. These long form pieces offer critiques of contemporary poetry releases and promote commentary on the state of poetry at large. The essays are written with an academic tone–if you’re used to reading the New York or London Review of Books, you’ll appreciate their flavor. In issue 56, strong reviews from Ben Hickman and Laurie Duggan stand alongside the well written, long-running column "Of Tradition and Experiment" by Jennifer K. Dick. The essays, to me, are a strong point in the journal; they act as a launching pad where poets outside the mainstream can have a little limelight, and encourage a conversation in the community. Though perhaps hard to grasp without a cursory knowledge of the forms or poets being discussed, these essays are worth the time.
However, even with these qualities, there are elements of Tears in the Fence that irked me, and that I couldn’t quite ignore.
The first I found was the curious selection of prose that Tears offers. Though focusing a majority of its page count, and dedicating 100 percent of its essays and reviews to poetry, there are five prose selections offered. The prose, though solid for the most part, feels out of place in the greater world of Tears, alien amongst what would otherwise be considered a poetry journal and essay space. Placed alongside some of the strongest poetry in the issue, the prose pieces read as though they were chosen as an afterthought, which is a shame for the writers.
Perhaps it is my own prejudice working here: the prose included in Tears in the Fence is conservative in form, tone, and lyricism, and lack the presence and excitement of the current wave of fiction we tend to find in American journals. Again, the bar is set quite high, perhaps, by a literarily abundant American vantage point. Was I reading Tears with an American perspective and therefore not able to fully grasp its particular quirky British-ness? Was I being parochial? Or was it something more?
The issue I have with Tears in the Fence, the thing that keeps it from being truly enjoyable, is more than that: my criticism isn’t strictly about content, it’s about cohesion. Between the poetry, essays and the prose selected, even on multiple readings, I haven’t been able to nail down the journal and say to myself, ‘Hey, this is what Tears in the Fence is.’ Within this dense issue full of good work (and some work not quite for me) there isn’t a common thread that brings the whole together, nothing that gives the journal its own spirit–it’s as if the poetry, prose, and essays live in different universes, never complementing one another, never becoming something more.
The best journals, even when offering such a rich cornucopia of style and voices as Tears does, have a cohesion that makes them an individual amongst a flood of other journals. This is something which Tears, in the end, lacks.
So, I don’t think it’s really about US versus EU perspective at all. Maybe that discussion can be dropped for good. Maybe it’s an international community, and we should trust our feelings in regards to aesthetic quality.
Now, this isn’t a write off of Tears–it is an enjoyable read for the most part. I remember reading a critique somewhere a while ago that described Tears in the Fence as being a mixed bag. Maybe, in the end, that is what it is–and in this reviewer’s mind, this is Tears' only real fault. After reading issue 56, I’m not exactly sure what Tears is doing. Perhaps if the prose were cut, or a common theme found, Tears might be a go-to journal for those who want a little bit of this style, and a little bit of that. Right now, those who read Tears will have to appreciate it for the mixed bag it is.
