Jake Syersak received his MFA from the University of Arizona and is
currently a PhD student in English and Creative Writing at the University of
Georgia. He is the author of the full-length Yield Architecture (Burnside Books, 2018) and several chapbooks,
including Neocologism: A Trio of
Encyclopedic Entries for Treading the Anthropo-Scenic Psyche (ShirtPocket
Press, 2017), These Ghosts / This Compost: An Aubadeclogue (above/ground press 2017), Impressions in the Language of a Lantern’s Wick (Ghost Proposal
2016), and Notes to Wed No Toward
(Plan B Press 2014). His poems have appeared in Black Warrior Review, Colorado
Review, Conjunctions, Verse Daily, Omniverse, and elsewhere. He edits Cloud Rodeo, serves as a contributing editor for Letter Machine Editions, and co-curates the Yumfactory Reading Series alongside Paul
Cunningham in Athens, GA. He is currently at work on an anthology of American
surrealism and translating the works of Moroccan writer Mohammed Khair-Eddine.
Paul Cunningham is the author of a chapbook of poems called GOAL/TENDER MEAT/TENDER (horse less
press, 2015) and he is the translator of two chapbooks by Swedish author,
playwright, and video artist, Sara Tuss Efrik: Automanias: Selected Poems (winner of the 2015 Goodmorning
Menagerie Chapbook-in-Translation Contest) and The Night’s Belly (Toad Press, Fall 2016). His translations of
Helena Österlund have appeared in Asymptote,
Interim, and Sink Review. He is a contributing editor to Fanzine and his writing can be found in Yalobusha Review, DREGINALD,
Dostoyevsky Wannabe’s Cassette 68, Fireflies Film Magazine, DIAGRAM, Bat City Review, LIT, Tarpaulin Sky, Spork, and others. His poem-film, It Is Announced (a collaboration with Valerie Mejer Caso and Barry
Shapiro), premiered in the 2016 Kochi-Muziris Biennale. He co-curates the
Yumfactory Reading Series with Jake Syersak in Athens, GA. He holds a MFA in
Poetry from the University of Notre Dame.
1 – When did Radioactive Cloud first start? How have your
original goals as a publisher shifted since you started, if at all? And what
have you learned through the process?
Jake:
I’d been wanting to publish chapbooks for a while, but I never really knew how.
Then I met Paul, who had successfully published a number of chapbooks but had
since halted production. I think we were downing $1 pints of lager at
Grindhouse during a very sweaty Georgia summer day when we got talking about
the possibilities of making it happen. I really wanted to learn how to do it
and he seemed to not want to do it alone: so there you go. I think it was
pretty clear to both of us that our respective literary journals had similar
enough aesthetics that we would be compatible as editors but also that their
aesthetic leanings were different enough that it would make for an interesting
mashup.
2 – What first brought you to publishing?
P:
I started Radioactive Moat in 2009.
My aim has always been to publish work from both emerging and established
writers. Since I grew up in the green of the radioactive, slime-saturated 90s,
it’s no surprise that my endeavors tend to include dark
ecologies, grotesquerie, abject bodies, and the Anthropocene. I’m also
interested in poetry-in-translation, poetry that seeks to decolonize, and poetry
that responds to queerness.
J: I’ve been involved with a number of journals/presses,
including Cloud Rodeo, Sonora Review,
and Letter Machine Editions. I realized pretty early on that trends in
literature don’t happen spontaneously; they’re cultivated over time by those
that provide them a venue. But it’s not just a line of influence I’m interested
in. I’ve always wanted to have a more direct line to the artists themselves.
Running a press and/or journal gives you a great excuse to reach out to and
establish relationships with artists you might not get a chance to communicate
with otherwise.
3 – What do you consider the role and responsibilities, if
any, of small publishing?
P:
To put the needs of your authors and contributors before your own.
J:
Right, it really comes down to that. If you don’t believe whole-heartedly in every
single work you publish, and aren’t prepared to defend and serve that work in
every capacity at your disposal, you shouldn’t be in that position. There’s no
room for editors just going through the motions. The literary sphere will be
what we make it.
4 – What do you see your press doing that no one else is?
P:
As far as ‘ecopoetics’ go, I think we’re kind of tired of that. When it comes
to nature, we’re looking for something more than a description of the view from
a mountain or someone’s reflection on an afternoon hike. That might be one
thing that separates us from other presses. Maybe it’s time for a ‘nature poem’
that scares the hell out of people. I think that’s what we’re looking for. It’s
not enough anymore to dedicate an ode or a few euphonic lines to a nearly or
already-extinct species. It’s too late for that kind of poem.
J:
Considering the first two books we’re publishing, it’s clear we’re aiming to
reconfigure how ecologies intertwine with poetics. The fascinating thing about
both Carleen and Dennis’ books is that they both implicitly reject traditional
ontological models that separate the human from the nonhuman with laser-like
precision. Making that boundary more spectral and fuzzy is vital to a future
ethics. I think we’re in this as much for ethics as we are for aesthetics.
We’re not aiming low here. We’re looking for work that shifts paradigms. We’re
lucky to begin our press with two books that do just that.
5 – What do you see as the most effective way to get new
chapbooks out into the world?
P:
Encouraging others to review chapbooks and thanking them for their time and
care with review copies. Being active on social media or at least having some
kind of presence on social media.
6 – How involved an editor are you? Do you dig deep into
line edits, or do you prefer more of a light touch?
P:
We don’t dig too deep. After all, we liked our authors’ poems for a reason,
right? Give us your wonkiest grammar, your lowest references to pop culture!
Give us your apple cores, your most nourishing jargon! We’re not interested in
rewriting poems. If something seems off about a piece, we’ll just ask.
J:
I’m willing to be as involved or non-involved as the author wants. Above all, I
want to respect their vision. If we’re publishing it, we’ve already agreed on a
fundamental level that we share the vision of the work, and that’s good enough
for me.
7 – How do your books get distributed? What are your usual
print runs?
P:
Chapbooks are shipped in the mail. We do a print run of 100 copies of each chapbook.
Once a chapbook has sold out, we ask our authors if they would like us to make
their chapbook available as a digital download on the Radioactive Cloud site.
8 – How many other people are involved with editing or
production? Do you work with other editors, and if so, how effective do you
find it? What are the benefits, drawbacks?
P:
There’s just two of us at the moment and four hands are better than one.
J:
It’s funny, I think we began the venture just needing someone else’s motivation
to kick our asses into gear. We both wanted to do it but I don’t think either
of us wanted to go it alone. I know I had had enough of being sole editor of Cloud Rodeo. I wasn’t growing in any
respect as a publisher in isolation.
9– How has being an editor/publisher changed the way you
think about your own writing?
J:
I’m always inundated with work that’s far better than my own, so I’m always
thinking “shit, I’ve gotta do better.” It keeps me from becoming too
comfortable, complacent, or satisfied with my own work. It’s keeps me in a
consistent positive panic.
P:
I agree with Jake. I think there’s definitely a risk in feeling ‘too
comfortable’ with your own writing. Something David Bowie once said has always
stayed with me: “If you feel safe in the area you’re working in, you’re not
working in the right area.”
10– How do you approach the idea of publishing your own
writing? Some, such as Gary Geddes when he still ran Cormorant, refused such,
yet various Coach House Press’ editors had titles during their tenures as
editors for the press, including Victor Coleman and bpNichol. What do you think
of the arguments for or against, or do you see the whole question as
irrelevant?
J:
I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it as long as the press doesn’t
become a vehicle solely for promoting the editors’ work. There’s certainly more
incredible work out there than there are publishers, and so a lot of it doesn’t
see the light of day. I would abstain
from publishing my own work only because I’m generally uncomfortable with
self-promotion and I think there are far better writers more deserving. I see
editorial work as a chance to serve rather than as a personal opportunity. An
editor/press out for themselves is a dangerous thing for everybody.
P:
I agree with Jake’s take on editorial work as a chance to serve other writers.
I might have fewer concerns about self-promotion than him though. I have been a
vocal supporter of writers like Steve Roggenbuck. You have to do what works
best for you.
11– How do you see Radioactive Cloud evolving?
P:
It would be awesome to publish full-length books down the road, but that takes
more money. In the meantime, we’re focused on printing one to two chapbooks a
year.
J:
Yeah, hard to say. I’d love for it to evolve to full-lengths, too. We’ll keep
working with the resources we have and take it one step at a time.
12– What, as a publisher, are you most proud of
accomplishing? What do you think people have overlooked about your
publications? What is your biggest frustration?
J:
Well, we had a really successful first open reading period. And we got far more
impressive submissions than we were able to take on as projects. So far, so
good.
13– Who were your early publishing models when starting out?
14– How does Radioactive Cloud work to engage with your
immediate literary community, and community at large? What journals or presses
do you see Radioactive Cloud in dialogue with? How important do you see those
dialogues, those conversations?
P:
Those conversations are very important to us and our website lists journals and
presses that continue to inspire us. Just click on “What We Like.”
15– Do you hold regular or occasional readings or launches?
How important do you see public readings and other events?
16– How do you utilize the internet, if at all, to further
your goals?
P:
We share our own work and support the work of others. We review new books when
we have the time and share reviews to help spread the word.
17– Do you take submissions? If so, what aren’t you looking
for?
P:
We will most likely hold another Open Reading Period some time in November or
December of 2018.
18– Tell me about three of your most recent titles, and why
they’re special.
P:
For now, there’s only two in the making. In fall of 2018, we’ll be proudly distributing
Dennis James Sweeney’s Poems About Moss
and Carleen Tibbetts’ DATACLYSM.jpg.
Whether it’s Tibbetts’ “river of zeroes” or Sweeney’s “Black moss,” we see both
of these titles as very much in conversation with one other.
J:
I am over-the-moon excited about our first two books. These books are
innovations of their genres, not just “good” works. Carleen Tibbetts’ DATACLYSM.jpg is full of jewel-sharp,
picturesque, lyrical trudges across an unquantifiable digital landscape,
fetishizing its own spit-up of cultural ones and zeros as it goes. It’s
grotesque and tender and cacophonous and full of beautifully winding human and
inhuman turns. Reading it makes me feel like I’m some weird stream unsure of
where an algorithm ends and where the human begins. That’s pretty cool. And how
can I describe Dennis James Sweeney’s Poems
About Moss? Part poem, part essay, part collage, part political treatise:
it opens up all these abstracted sores/spores of Trump-era politics,
language-powers, moss languages, subject-object dualisms, confessional voices,
textual ecologies, and sites/cites their weirdly weird and unexpected
exchanges. I’m in awe of both books. They’re special because they’ve renewed my
faith in the undiscovered that poetry has special access to.
