This blog has returned, but in a more functional, significantly less obligatory manner.
More, as always, to come.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
February 23
One of the stories that I think is ready to go is the "Time Machine." I feel that the story is really evocative of those moments we all had as children, often in the classroom, about trying to make something more out of reality, only to be shut down and scorned by either our peers or an adult authority figure. The writing of the piece is not overly grandiose, but at the same time it's not too simple to be boring or minimalistic. Crucially, I don't just think that it's the reader's nostaligia that makes this piece work, but it also just happens to be an interestingly told story, and I like the authentic way that the author presents a typical classroom setting.
If I could change one thing, I would probably ask the author to consider a more eye-catching ending, but I still think the piece works with the ending it has at the moment.
If I could change one thing, I would probably ask the author to consider a more eye-catching ending, but I still think the piece works with the ending it has at the moment.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Monday 2, 2009
I thought that Alan D. Williams' "What is an Editor" was insightful with regards to laying out the multi-faceted duties of a successful editor, as well as describing the overall importance a good editor plays in the success of an author. As Williams says, for the author, "the editor is acting as the first truly disinterested reader, giving the author not only constructive help but also, one hopes, the first inkling of how reviewers, readers, and the marketplace will react, so that the author can revise accordingly." Williams' assertion that an editor must be involved in every step of the process is one that seems like a no-brainer in the modern day, especially given what I learned from Richard Curtis' essay.
In M. Lincoln Schuster's "An open letter to a would-be Editor," I was, frankly, shocked by some of the things confessed by Schuster with regards to the realities of editing; one of which being the idea that some editors don't get to read a word of the actual manuscript before having to make a final decision. However, despite such harrowing passages, Schuster's essay was probably my favorite so far this quarter, not only for its useful information, but also for the passion Schuster clearly holds towards editing.
Richard Curtis' essay, "Are Editors Necessary?", like many of the pieces we have read thus far, also points out that despite cries for the (mostly) fictitious "good old days," editors are in danger of finding themselves obsolete unless they can evolve along with the world, with one of the key ingredients being a culture of editors who can shake off the notion that taking risks is not worth it in the editing and publishing industry. I also thought Curtis' closing time-scale was a funny, though overtly hyperbolic touch.
In M. Lincoln Schuster's "An open letter to a would-be Editor," I was, frankly, shocked by some of the things confessed by Schuster with regards to the realities of editing; one of which being the idea that some editors don't get to read a word of the actual manuscript before having to make a final decision. However, despite such harrowing passages, Schuster's essay was probably my favorite so far this quarter, not only for its useful information, but also for the passion Schuster clearly holds towards editing.
Richard Curtis' essay, "Are Editors Necessary?", like many of the pieces we have read thus far, also points out that despite cries for the (mostly) fictitious "good old days," editors are in danger of finding themselves obsolete unless they can evolve along with the world, with one of the key ingredients being a culture of editors who can shake off the notion that taking risks is not worth it in the editing and publishing industry. I also thought Curtis' closing time-scale was a funny, though overtly hyperbolic touch.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Wednesday 14
I thought that Jodee Stanley's article "The Changing Shape of Literary Magazines; Or 'What The Hell is this thing?'" was pretty spot-on, especially considering that it was something like a kind of middle ground between the three pieces we read for today. Her acceptance of the natural progression of literary journals, and media in general, breathed of practicality more than any kind of zeal for one extreme or the other. I want to believe in her idea that there's plenty of readership to go around for both print journals and online journals in the future, but my jury's still out on that.
Eric Rosenfield's piece seemed to have the most hope for print journals, provided they strictly follow his directions, as he didn't even really bother to focus on online publications. His point that editors of literary journals have failed to give people an attractive proposition, is in general pretty infallible. Overall, I feel that he can sum up his article better than I can- "My point here certainly isn't that literary magazines should stop publishing unknowns. Rather, literary magazines need to require a lower entry cost in time and money to make it easier for readers to take a chance on them. Because that's what we're doing when we buy a magazine of short stories and poetry by writers we've never heard of: taking a chance. The editors of literary magazines need to start recognizing that, stop blaming the readers, and realize whose fault it is that their magazines aren't worth the risk."
The Harpoonist article was by far the wittiest piece, however, it was the least enlightning as far as offering any kind of solution for the future of literary magazines. The essay seemed more like a showcase of "look how clever I can be" than anything else. Though to its credit, it was entertaining, and it did produce the "boycotting sandpaper" phrase, something that I will surely steal for myself in the future.
Eric Rosenfield's piece seemed to have the most hope for print journals, provided they strictly follow his directions, as he didn't even really bother to focus on online publications. His point that editors of literary journals have failed to give people an attractive proposition, is in general pretty infallible. Overall, I feel that he can sum up his article better than I can- "My point here certainly isn't that literary magazines should stop publishing unknowns. Rather, literary magazines need to require a lower entry cost in time and money to make it easier for readers to take a chance on them. Because that's what we're doing when we buy a magazine of short stories and poetry by writers we've never heard of: taking a chance. The editors of literary magazines need to start recognizing that, stop blaming the readers, and realize whose fault it is that their magazines aren't worth the risk."
The Harpoonist article was by far the wittiest piece, however, it was the least enlightning as far as offering any kind of solution for the future of literary magazines. The essay seemed more like a showcase of "look how clever I can be" than anything else. Though to its credit, it was entertaining, and it did produce the "boycotting sandpaper" phrase, something that I will surely steal for myself in the future.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Monday 12, 2009
It seems that the purpose of literary magazines has always been relatively constant, even when the question of their survival has not. The importance of publications for the unknown authors of the world goes without saying in most cases, since experimentation is what makes art in the first place. In "The life and death of an academic journal" by Cleanth Brooks, I liked the Brooks' idea that "the editor who insists on a sure thing will simply market other people's notions of literature- not encourage experiments or develop new talents" (ALP, 93). This, it seems, is the one thing most people can agree on concerning the importance of the "little magazine;" its ability to act as a forum for the common man to express himself rather than toil in obscurity while the people at Random House publish twenty more books about quests for ancient historical relics lost in time.
I was also really interested in the way Brooks ended his essay, expounding on the modern problem of having way more writers than readers and calling the reader "the primary victims of what I have to call literary inflation" (99). With this idea Brooks touches on something that I myself have been wondering about, that is, what does it mean for the future of literature when everyone with microsoft office and/or a blog can publish themselves quickly, easily, and without really any forethought. The answer, unfortunately, points to a world where those who still read are faced with a new kind of struggle- the burden of choice. Though we live in a world that is predictated on the idea that the more things being produced the better, I can't help but to wonder if this is really such a good thing? Brooks himself emphasizes the futility of trying to read all that is submitted to him, but never the less holds on the romantic idea that any John Doe could write another Gravity's Rainbow if just given the chance and the proper outlet. The fact is, people worship the "bestsellers list" because it makes their lives easier, not because they necessarily have inherent lemming-like qualities. At least I hope.
I was also really interested in the way Brooks ended his essay, expounding on the modern problem of having way more writers than readers and calling the reader "the primary victims of what I have to call literary inflation" (99). With this idea Brooks touches on something that I myself have been wondering about, that is, what does it mean for the future of literature when everyone with microsoft office and/or a blog can publish themselves quickly, easily, and without really any forethought. The answer, unfortunately, points to a world where those who still read are faced with a new kind of struggle- the burden of choice. Though we live in a world that is predictated on the idea that the more things being produced the better, I can't help but to wonder if this is really such a good thing? Brooks himself emphasizes the futility of trying to read all that is submitted to him, but never the less holds on the romantic idea that any John Doe could write another Gravity's Rainbow if just given the chance and the proper outlet. The fact is, people worship the "bestsellers list" because it makes their lives easier, not because they necessarily have inherent lemming-like qualities. At least I hope.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)