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.

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.

In the beginning...