This spring, an old Paris Review interview led me to make a study of Katherine Anne Porter. I started with some of her most acclaimed works and then read the biography by Joan Givner. While we're often advised to immerse ourselves in the work of one writer, I found that reading the biography afterwards made that experience even more valuable. Through the biography, I got to see how these stories and short novels came into being: what life experiences went into them, what her process was like, and what her stumbling blocks were. For instance, I had an epiphany when I saw that she often put stories aside for years. I'm always afraid that if I don't muddle through right then, I'll never go back to it. But clearly for Katherine Anne Porter, this was integral to her success. She kept the drafts, returning to them when she had the insight or skill to finish them properly. I imagine that this kept her from ruining or overworking her stories, and from wasting time that could be spent writing new work (though I've a feeling she actually spent that time drinking!).

I've done this twice before, with Raymond Chandler and Eudora Welty, and both times I took something away. How-tos are fine, but there's something to be said for seeing what worked for others, and understanding exactly why.

For the rest of the summer, I'll be taking a closer look at how to submit to some of the literary journals and magazines described on this site. Naturally I started at the top, with The New Yorker, but as I reviewed the magazine's fiction, I wondered what other writers thought of the work they publish. Do you think of it as old school or fresh or a mix of both? Weigh in with the poll, or comment below.