Editing a magazine is like going to an art gallery,
shopping in a mall, attending a concert series, looking in 
the window of a chocolate shop.  The sights and sounds, 
smells and tastes, swirl around, appealing or repelling, 
demanding attention and seeking approval.  The panoply of 
submissions crossing the editor’s desktop spreads out in a 
splendid array, each the product of responding to stimuli 
so diverse as to test the malleability of the editor’s 
mind and background.  He, along with a board of fellow 
editors, must put a stamp of approval on enough of the 
offerings to fill a magazine.  
   The editors put each work on a scale.  On one side, the 
designs and craft of an artist; on the other side, the 
accumulation of editors’ critical senses.  What do the 
editors have that can counterbalance the time and effort, 
passion and honing skills that result in such artistry?  
Balancing skills is not a contest, a ‘Man-proposes-God-
disposes’ equation.  Each submission is a work of art, a 
piece of music, a bon-bon to be tasted and tested 
according to what the editors feel is needed for sharing 
with a readership whose tastes have yet to be tested.  
Acceptances must, perforce, be subjective since to be 
completely objective implies a universal consensus on the 
difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ art.  Such 
subjectivity is comprised of the editors’ background and 
education, their knowledge of what is current, some 
inevitable personal bias, and a ‘feeling’ for what is 
suitable for the market today.
   The editors stand as arbitrators between writers’ and 
artists’ aspirations and the perceived needs of a diverse 
readership looking for new and unique experiences in the 
world of art and literature.