Hello!

hi. if you’ve found this page, you’ve probably spent a little too long on the website, which i appreciate more than i can properly say.

this isn’t an official statement, or anything we’d put on the front page. it’s more a note about how this all actually works, a bit behind the thought process for our work.

fluorescent isn’t really an extension of my personal taste, which surprises people sometimes. i’m not just picking the pieces i personally adore. a lot of the work we feature isn’t even my favourite in that sense. it’s more that i read something and think this should probably exist somewhere outside the author’s computer. something that i feel needs to see the light of day. that’s usually enough for me.

so the magazine is less “my taste” and more… a space i’m curating. trying to make room for things that feel like they should be read.

another thing people often don’t realize is that every submission is actually read by me, the EIC. we don’t really have slush readers. when something comes in, i’ll usually read it within the first 24 hours. most mornings before college, and again at night before bed, i open the submissions and read whatever just came in.

that first read is very loose. i’m not trying to judge anything too quickly. i mostly just let the words wash over me and see what sticks. the only things that really get filtered out immediately are pieces that break the rules outright (ai work, plagiarism, hate speech, ect.)

after that, i go back and read again.

on the second pass, i start sorting things into three piles: yes, no, and recheck. the yes pile is usually just the strongest piece in that particular batch of submissions. the no pile is the weakest ones in the same group. everything else goes into recheck, which is usually most of the submissions.

the yes pieces sometimes get acceptances pretty quickly. the no pieces go through another round where we try to offer a bit of feedback, or recommend a poem the writer might enjoy. then i go back to the recheck pile and start the process again.

which is why it can take a while for us to respond. most submissions get read three, four, sometimes six times. i’d rather take a little longer and give the work proper attention than rush through it.

that being said, i’m still (mostly) just one person reading everything. i can’t pretend to be completely unbiased.

there are a few things that tend to get rejected more often. ars poetica pieces, for one. poems that feel very self-mythologizing, writing that leans too heavily on cliché phrases without really doing anything new with them, overly self-centric poetry that doesn’t move past the obvious, forced rhymes, ect

things i tend to love are a little harder to define, but let me try:

very specific metaphors, strange or unexpected comparisons, language that’s vivid and visceral enough that you can feel it. basically pieces that are hyperspecific, niche, reflective in a way that doesn’t try to make itself universal.

something i’d genuinely love to see more of (though nobody ever seems to submit) is oddly technical poetry. not just in form (though i do appreciate that too), but poems that bring in the language of whatever field you’re in. scientific terminology, academic jargon, weirdly specific knowledge. for some reason i find that combination of poetry and niche skill to be fascinating.

i don’t think there’s a formula for getting into fluorescent. if there was, it probably wouldn’t be very interesting to run.

but if you’re submitting, the only real thing i can say is that the work is being read. slowly, probably multiple times, by someone who is trying to treat it with a bit of care.

so, that’s about it, really :)

want to know more about what im reading in my spare time? here are some recs

- Bestiary by Donika Kelly
- Goodlord: An Email by Ella Frears
- Scared Violent Like Horses by John McCarthy
- Assembly by Natasha Brown
- Wordslut by Amanda Montell
- Eggshell Skulls by Bri Lee

(excluding classic and older writers like donne and poe and duffy and plath and more, despite the fact that i really love their work. also excluding popular poets like cope and limon and bukowski. youve probably already heard of them + i dont really adore their work. also support living artists!)

— teesta

(ps, want to send us an arc / review your book? feel free to email us!)