In looking over the P&W info today I saw a rather nonliterary cover photo and this write-up on the summer 2005 Fence, a journal that we often discussed in my former poetry group. Apparently, editor Wolff decided on the cover photo

after noticing that the Fall/Winter 2003 issue of the quarterly—which featured a subtler piece of art on the cover—had a sell-through rate that was 25 percent below that of a typical issue. Wolff calls the current cover an example of “experimental (though certainly not innovative) marketing.” Of course, this kind of thing is the standard for many commercial magazines: The cover of the October issue of Vanity Fair shows Paris Hilton in a similarly provocative pose. But so much skin has rarely—if ever—been seen on the cover of a literary magazine. Is it a sly comment on contemporary culture, a surrender to bottom-line sales figures, or just good-natured fun for an industry that could use a little?

Sly I doubt, and fun could be skin used with something relevant like bound books or printed pages. A pierced naked girl covering her melon tits is neither sly nor fun (nor creative nor interesting ...). That photo is a deep-waisted bow to the almighty though diminishing American greenback. Whose wallet is Wolff trying to open -- the high-minded high schooler who "reads" Playboy too? Anyone who knows me knows I'm liberal and not a prude, but seriously. Does anyone buy a lit mag because the cover represents that kind of "fun"? I guess we'll see. Hey, if it brings new readers to poetry, fine by me. But take it for what it is -- a way to gather attention and money for the publication.