James Wagner on reviewing and conflicts of interest. While I think I understand his perspective -- when I submit work to any editor, there is always some emotional residue yay or nay -- I find the all-or-nothing position a little, how you say, Chariots-of-Fire won't-run-on-the-sabbath. The purity is admirable, but the decision to withdraw from the world is borderline spiteful poignant.

I believe it is helpful and generous to offer a poet a reasonable and balanced critique of their work. To write and publish and not get any response is painful. To read something and not to share the experience of that reading, it isn't selfish, but it isn't complete either.

A review is public correspondence. I'm terrible about private correspondence -- until e-mail came around, you could say I didn't believe in writing letters, didn't trust the USPS to deliver. (Disclosing this paranoia in the hopes that someones reading will recognize this syndrome in themselves and decide to go ahead and talk to a therapist -- the USPS is not the enemy.) But f'reals, it would be almost as good for the poet to get notes from readers as it is to get a review, at least as far as being reassured of one's own existence is concerned.

That's baseline. You write and publish, you want a response.