THE MARQUIS MEETS ON THURSDAYS FROM 5-6 PM IN PARDEE 101

JOIN OUR GROUPME.

If there is not a significant backlog of work to review, we may go through an old issue, shoot the shit, and end the meeting early. Around midterms or finals, we typically cancel meetings all together. We will let you know what to expect each week by sending a message in the GroupMe.

 

 

The review process is as follows:

1. The work is submitted, selected, and anonymized before being presented to the magazine’s staff at our weekly meetings; depending on the work’s medium and it’s size, it may be reviewed for anywhere from five to thirty minutes.

1½. If we are reviewing written work, we elect for someone to read it aloud.

 2. We discuss why we liked the piece

 3. We discuss what “works” about the piece (e.g. you might not like a certain poem, but you can acknowledge that the author’s word choice creates a distinct rhythm)

 4. We discuss what doesn’t “work” about the piece (e.g. you might like a certain story, but you can acknowledge that character X is underdeveloped)

 5. We get our final impressions in order.

 

 

Those present at the meeting then vote:

• YES––the piece is fit to publish in its present form, or with minor edits
• MAYBE––the piece is fit to publish once it has been revised and approved by the editors
• NO––the piece requires significant revision, and must be resubmitted to be voted on at a later meeting

 

 

We are typically an easy crowd to please, voting-wise, but the author/artist will  hear all manner of critique and recommendations regardless of the “verdict”––this workshopping environment allows community members to receive semi-serious feedback on their creative work. An editor will then follow up within a week, summarizing the comments and reactions of those present at the meeting, as well as offering more structured feedback and recommendations for revision. The degree to which that feedback needs to be attended to before The Marquis will publish your work depends, of course, on the vote at the meeting where it was presented. A general lack of visual arts expertise on our staff paired with the knowledge that revisions in the physical world are harder to come by means that our critique of visual works tends to be less systematic––admittedly haphazard––but it is no less enthusiastically offered, and we are no less forgiving, voting-wise.