Aspiring to be a truly collective project, ‘In Reality, Poetry’ cannot and should not dispense with some guidelines – dictated by commonsense and practical considerations – for the submission of critical material. It is in compliance with these guidelines that we seek to avoid any drawback due to an amateurish approach, any blatant heterogeneity of goals and differences in quality, which unfortunately seems the case with many lit-blog currently in activity.
a) The critical contribution:
- Can be in the form of a textual analysis, an in-depth review, an essay or a comparative study.
- Can either be unpublished – hence written for ‘In Reality, Poetry’– or previously published elsewhere, in which case the editorial staff will peer-review the contribution and evaluate its suitability with reference to the goals of the project. In case of acceptance, it will be published, with the proviso that a revision may be required when it appears beneficial. Obviously, the original source of the contribution will be always reported. It is the author’s responsability to require permission from the publisher to re-print the contribution: such permission (e-mail, scanned letter, or other) must be sent to the editorial staff (email@example.com)
- Its length can vary, but contributions under 5.000 characters (blank spaces included) will not normally be accepted. Exceptionally long contributions (over 40.000 characters) may be published in parts and without being interrupted by other essays, for reasons of reader-friendliness.
- It must be sent in a Microsoft word file, and its title should follow the format: Author’s name + contribution’s title.
- It must feature the lines/passages/poems discussed, so that the critical discourse may be verified by anyone.
- Footnotes are optional.
- It can be written in English, Italian, or Spanish.
- In case the contribution will be rejected, by 60 days its author will receive a short note with the editorial staff’s motivations for refusal.
- Every contribution published on ‘In Reality, Poetry’ will be indexed and archived in a file (PDF, MOBI and EPUB) which can be read and downloaded for free for those who subscribed to the website.
- The original source of a contribution first published on ‘In Reality, Poetry’ must be acknowledged whenever such contribution is published again elsewhere, both on the web and in print (e.g. ‘First appeared in ‘In Reality, Poetry’, 20th February 2013’).
- The same critic can contribute more than once to the project, if s/he wishes so.
b) The poetic material to be discussed/analysed:
- Can either be a single poetic text, a poetry collection, or a selection of texts/passages from different authors grouped together for comparative purposes.
- It is totally up to the critic to choose which poetic work to analyse: from canonical poets from the past to contemporary ones, traditional or experimental in form and poetics, provided that in all cases it can be traced is a link to or seen a relevance with our time or our needs both as individuals and within society. The unique yet substantial restriction to this state-of-affairs is that we will not accept materials written for promotional or marketing purposes. This is made explicit in the hope that the need for a disinterested, in-depth analysis would prevail over more short-term temptations. As a consequence, it is hoped that the critic will choose the work to write on in absolute autonomy, without any pressure from authors willing to be presented.
- Poems and passages which are not in Italian should be accompanied by a translation in Italian (this can be made by the editorial staff in case Italian is not the critic’s mother-tongue)
c) The notion of ‘Reality’:
- It is up to the critic to decide what s/he means by ‘Reality’: it can either be a specific theoretical construct, or a concept framed according to a broader philosophical perspective, according to commonsense and so on (e.g. in the widest of senses: ‘Reality is everything standing outside us and which is of some relevance to us’). Preferentially, ‘In Reality, Poetry’ endorses pluralist, re-constructivist perspectives at odds with radical nihilism or quasi-orphic perspectives. Whatever the sense adopted, it is of paramount importance that the critic makes such sense as explicit as possible in the course of its contribution, so that its position may be easily determined and contextualised.
- It can be intra-textual, extra-textual or both. In other words, it is perfectly fine to write on the reality (or reality) represented by a poem or work (e.g. the London of the 20s in The Waste Land and the spiritual dryness of that time); or on the reality preceding the poem (e.g. the historical, cultural and social context favouring certain poetic forms and poetics over others); or even the target context (e.g. why certain texts are still of vital importance today). All these options may be exclusive (one can focus on one aspect only) or inclusive, in the attempt to connect them (e.g. to link the context of production, context of reception and the ‘text-world’ created by the poem/collection). Again, the final choice it is up to the critic.
NB: in order to avoid specious and amateurish debates, the comment form will be closed at all times, excepting the editorials (which are published every five contributions). In case anyone would like to endorse, criticize or reject a contribution published on ‘In Reality, Poetry’ can do so only by writing and proposing a second contribution which complies with the above guidelines. We will not accept any request of books, manuscripts or attachments to be reviewed. For any further information, please write to: firstname.lastname@example.org