Aaron Jackson: In writing my review I read the history of Eclectica 's creation. Can you expand or elaborate on the inspiration behind the journal's formation?

Tom Dooley: In 1996, Chris Lott came to me with the idea of creating an online literary magazine. The two of us first met in the seventh grade, went to a little high school in rural Alaska together, and we had always shared a dream of someday contributing to the world of letters. By the time we were out of college a few years, it was becoming clear that neither of us were going to be best-selling authors, though, but we did possess the hubris to think that we could judge the quality of other people's work. We also had the hubris to think that with the internet we had an opportunity and the ability to do something unique. So we went for it, primarily behind Chris's inspiration and perspiration for the first couple years.

AJ: Along with the previous question, what is it exactly about the electronic (Internet) medium that attracts you?

TD: I like the immediacy of it. The fact that I can turn on my computer and with a search engine and a few clicks, find any poem, story, or author. I like the freedom, as an editor, of being able to publish anything I want to--any length, any subject matter. Of course, with that freedom and immediacy comes a greater personal responsibility, because if I don't have standards, there aren't any outside pressures like advertisers or printing costs to hammer me into line.

AJ: When are your exact reading periods?

TD: We post a new issue four times per year: January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. The cut-off for submissions is the month before (December 1, March 1, etc.). Any late submissions are automatically considered for the next issue.

AJ: In your "Writer's Guidelines" section you encourage work that creates genres of its own. Can you clarify or expand on that?

TD: I think when we wrote that, we were hoping to cast as wide a net as we could. Is it possible in the 21st century to create a whole new genre? Probably not. However, it's the sentiment that counts--in this case the sentiment is that we're willing to consider work that's really out there, that takes chances. Of course, a lot of work that takes chances fails. That's the "chance" part.

AJ: Is there a direction you'd like to see poetry take, either format, content, or medium-wise that might make poetry more accessible to everyone?

TD: Julie is the poetry expert, but I do have my own take on this question. I don't believe poetry should change to be more accessible, nor do I think it's important for poetry to BE accessible to everyone. That's like saying everyone should be rich. Not to go Ayn Rand here, but laziness should never be rewarded. If people don't want to take the time to understand and appreciate poetry--or any other form of art for that matter--then that's their loss.

That being said, I prefer poetry that communicates something substantive and is strong on imagery over poetry that is overly self-conscious and piled high with verbal gimmickry. A poem should never be inaccessible just for the sake of being inaccessible--unless it is written for people who think that sort of thing is cool. I'm just not one of them.

AJ: Is there any type of work or commentary you strongly discourage?

TD: There are types of work or commentary that I would LIKE to strongly discourage, but I won't. Who am I to discourage works and commentaries?