about the fact that the Kenyan cannotnpossibly take a six- or seven-thousandndollar NEA grant if it means she willnhave to censor her authors. It seems tonme that censorship is not the real issuenand that it’s simply a matter of terminology.nIt will be interesting to seenwhat happens, but I don’t think anybodyncan edit a magazine long distancenfor a considerable period of time.”nCore immediately thinks of an exceptionnto his rule, however: JosephnEpstein of the American Scholar, whonhas a very good staff working in Washington.nHe also notes that the AmericannScholar has always been edited innthis way, that Hiram Hayden editednthe magazine from New York. “Butnthis is the only exception I can think ofnEvery other editor is going to have tonbe on the ground most of the time innorder to get his quarterly out.”nI ask Core about some of the otherndirections taken by quarterlies, for instancenthe special issues, entirely builtnaround a subject, published by thenMichigan Quarterly Review.n”In theory the Michigan Quarterlynidea might work, but in practice, whennyou see those special issues on thenairplane and the automobile and thingsnof that kind, although they could bengood, they just don’t work out. Thenissue on the automobile had one verynbrilliant litde piece in it that was aboutntwo pages long, but the rest of it wasnalmost a dead loss.n”One thing that goes on at a lot ofnquarterlies is that people think you cannhoke up these ideas and bring in greatneditors who will be interested in followingnup on a subject. But the truth isnevery quarterly has to have an editor, anbenevolent dictator — he may evennhave to be a savage dictator — and hencan’t just farm things out. He can’t justnpass his magazine around to everyonenin the country and have him do anspecial issue.n”If you look at the history of literarynquarterlies, beginning with FordnMadox Ford, you will see that theneditor is the essential ingredient innthese magazines and is in general anperson who has been a benevolentntyrant.”.nAny exceptions to that observation?n”The only exception I can think ofnis the case of Brooks and Warren.nBrooks and Warren working togethernwere such an extraordinary team thatn52/CHRONICLESnthey made up a third person. You cannread their textbooks and you can’t tellnwhich one is writing. And yet, if younread the criticism of either man, therenis a distinct difference in style in manynrespects.”nSince Brooks and Warren are associatednwith the inception and the heydaynof the Southern Review, this leads tonsome consideration of that venerablenand once-influential quarterly.n”In general the way that the SouthernnReview has been edited since thennbears out what I am talking about. Inhad Malcolm Cowley say to me onentime in conversation, and not with anynmalice whatsoever, that the SouthernnReview was two different magazines.nHe was speaking, of course, of the twondifferent editors — Lewis P. Simpsonnand Donald Stanford. I think the samenthing is likely to be true now with DavenSmith and James Olney editing thenmagazine.”nWhat about the regional situation,nthe place of the quarterlies, then andnnow, in Southern letters?n”Well, for a long time there werentwo Southern university presses and anfew quarterlies that carried the wholenSouthern literary establishment. Therenwas the Sewanee Review and the VirginianQuarterly; there was the SouthernnReview; there was that magazinenthat came out of New Orleans — ThenDouble Dealer. The whole literarynscene in the South used to depend onnthe quarterlies and two universitynpresses — L.S.U. and North Carolina.nNow we have got a much better situation.nWe have got at least a half a dozenngood university presses. And the Southnis probably characteristic of the rest ofnthe country in that there are too damnnmany publications. I would hate to seenany of the good ones go. But, on thenother hand, if somebody came to younor me and said what do you think aboutnstarting another quarteriy, I hope wenwould say it is the most dismal idea wenhave ever heard of”nWhat about the future? What donthe 1990’s look like to this editor?n”Well, I would like to find some waynof recharging our batteries, so to speak.nI don’t really know how to do this. Inthink that a magazine, when it tries tonbe different, is usually on the way out.”nHe cites the example of GrandnStreet, which he sees as “now finished.”nnn”It’s got a new format; it’s got a newneditor; it’s bloomed with illustrations.nThe writing looks much worse. It’s gotnthe first interview or two in the magazine’snhistory. I think that it’s verynimportant for a quarteriy to stick tonwhat it has always done well. And Inthink literary quarterlies essentiallynought to stick to literature. One of thenbiggest problems all of us have is thatnnobody reads with much intelligence. Indon’t know what to do about that. Onenof the essential aspects of the goodnquarteriy is that your readers have gotnto know what you are going to do. Youncan have a lively magazine, but younalso need to have a discernible program,none that your readers recognizenand understand.”nGeorge Garrett, a frequentncontributor to the literary quarterlies,nis the author of Death of the Foxnand, most recently, Entered Fromnthe Sun.nLITERATUREnA ConversationnAround SouthernnPoetrynby Kelly Cherry and Henry TaylornKelly Cherry and Henry Taylor metnat the University of Virginia inn1960, where he was a first-year undergraduatenand she was a graduate studentnin philosophy. After he got overnfeeling inferior because the difference inn