-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
I believe that I agree with this but I wasn’t even aware it was a problem. Who are the anonymous lit mags?
I believe that I agree with this but I wasn’t even aware it was a problem. Who are the anonymous lit mags?
i gathered this link by accessing the KILL AUTHOR twitter page. there i found, having been twitted you see, the link. i admit to an inadequate read of the article, but did read one part of the argument which was that, if you are an editor, and you provide an email address, but no christian name, you have failed duty as an editor, in being unaccountable for the overall production.
i gathered this link by accessing the KILL AUTHOR twitter page. there i found, having been twitted you see, the link. i admit to an inadequate read of the article, but did read one part of the argument which was that, if you are an editor, and you provide an email address, but no christian name, you have failed duty as an editor, in being unaccountable for the overall production.
i wouldnt mind ka’s anonymity so much if they didn’t keep drawing attention to it, like writing over-explanatory manifestos and twitting these articles, etc. like they’re trying to perpetuate the controversy.
i wouldnt mind ka’s anonymity so much if they didn’t keep drawing attention to it, like writing over-explanatory manifestos and twitting these articles, etc. like they’re trying to perpetuate the controversy.
these people seem very uptight
these people seem very uptight
Anonymous posting/editorship means reduced self-promotion, complete reliance on the words, and also a degree of intrigue, enticement, alluring sense of Deep Throatness, especially when it comes to publisher/agent blogs.
Anonymous posting/editorship means reduced self-promotion, complete reliance on the words, and also a degree of intrigue, enticement, alluring sense of Deep Throatness, especially when it comes to publisher/agent blogs.
i agree with the symbol man. for once. :P
i agree with the symbol man. for once. :P
But the words, in this case, are done by the non-anonymous authors, not the editors, right?
But the words, in this case, are done by the non-anonymous authors, not the editors, right?
I kind of don’t understand the point of naming your magazine “kill author” and having a Roland Barthes quote about how needing the death of the author but then none of the authors are anonymous and the only thing different about the magazine is the editors hide their names, something few people care about unless the editor happens to be really famous.
Barthes’s essay wasn’t called “Death of the Online Webzine Editor” you know.
I’m posting this comment anonymously in the spirit of things :P
I kind of don’t understand the point of naming your magazine “kill author” and having a Roland Barthes quote about how needing the death of the author but then none of the authors are anonymous and the only thing different about the magazine is the editors hide their names, something few people care about unless the editor happens to be really famous.
Barthes’s essay wasn’t called “Death of the Online Webzine Editor” you know.
I’m posting this comment anonymously in the spirit of things :P
What about editors using Pseudonyms? I know that some editors do that for self protection (like, they don’t have to worry about alienating ‘friends’ when they reject them and such)
What about editors using Pseudonyms? I know that some editors do that for self protection (like, they don’t have to worry about alienating ‘friends’ when they reject them and such)
It’s enlightening how threatened people are by a journal whose editors choose to remain anonymous. The negative reactions that >KA has spawned speak volumes. Why do people care? Does it really even matter? Do we have to find meaning in everything?
Personally, I think the >KA manifesto and twitter updates re anonymity are funny, just stoking the fire of controversy.
Why not just take it for what it is?
If half the people who get freaked out by >KA took the time to read the first issues, I think they’d realize that the journal justifies its own existence.
If you don’t like it, don’t read it. All this fuss is mad silly.
It’s enlightening how threatened people are by a journal whose editors choose to remain anonymous. The negative reactions that >KA has spawned speak volumes. Why do people care? Does it really even matter? Do we have to find meaning in everything?
Personally, I think the >KA manifesto and twitter updates re anonymity are funny, just stoking the fire of controversy.
Why not just take it for what it is?
If half the people who get freaked out by >KA took the time to read the first issues, I think they’d realize that the journal justifies its own existence.
If you don’t like it, don’t read it. All this fuss is mad silly.
Frankly, I can’t wait for this to turn into a witchhunt.
Frankly, I can’t wait for this to turn into a witchhunt.
I think this discussion (broadly speaking) is becoming so so tired. Writers write pseudonymously all the time and no one says anything. How is someone writing under a different name standing behind their work if the same cannot hold true for an anonymous editor? That people even consider anonymity a problem confounds me.
I think this discussion (broadly speaking) is becoming so so tired. Writers write pseudonymously all the time and no one says anything. How is someone writing under a different name standing behind their work if the same cannot hold true for an anonymous editor? That people even consider anonymity a problem confounds me.
I don’t quite get why it’s a big deal or why the ‘anonymity’ is getting reiterated so much. (I’m only putting it in speech marks because endlessly referencing a publication’s anonymity seems counterproductive.)
As Nathan mentioned, some editors use pseudonyms.
I assumed it’s sometimes as simple as those are the pen names under which they write. I think the editor of Mung Being uses a pen name, but I don’t really see how that’s either here nor there. They’re on issue 27, so I guess it’s worked all right for them. (Though I think the use of pseudonyms is slightly different, insofar as their may already be a body of work associated with that name.)
I don’t quite get why it’s a big deal or why the ‘anonymity’ is getting reiterated so much. (I’m only putting it in speech marks because endlessly referencing a publication’s anonymity seems counterproductive.)
As Nathan mentioned, some editors use pseudonyms.
I assumed it’s sometimes as simple as those are the pen names under which they write. I think the editor of Mung Being uses a pen name, but I don’t really see how that’s either here nor there. They’re on issue 27, so I guess it’s worked all right for them. (Though I think the use of pseudonyms is slightly different, insofar as their may already be a body of work associated with that name.)
Man, I thought I was down with the indie lit world but I’ve never heard of this controversy much less thought it had already gotten tired or turned into a big witch hunt. I think on just a factual level I’d argue that most writers who write pseudonymous pick a name and use that for a large body of work and thus it tends to be like a stage name, the person is standing by the work in some sense.
I don’t think it really bothers me at all if editors go anon. Wouldn’t really make me think less of a journal… I just don’t get the point. Unless you are Gordon Lish with The Quarterly or Diane Williams with NOON, how many editors exert such a weight over the journals (and those are two of the best journals ever…)? I feel like most people don’t know much about the editors of their favorite journals so seeing or not seeing their names on the masthead won’t change much.
Maybe I’m wrong though?
Man, I thought I was down with the indie lit world but I’ve never heard of this controversy much less thought it had already gotten tired or turned into a big witch hunt. I think on just a factual level I’d argue that most writers who write pseudonymous pick a name and use that for a large body of work and thus it tends to be like a stage name, the person is standing by the work in some sense.
I don’t think it really bothers me at all if editors go anon. Wouldn’t really make me think less of a journal… I just don’t get the point. Unless you are Gordon Lish with The Quarterly or Diane Williams with NOON, how many editors exert such a weight over the journals (and those are two of the best journals ever…)? I feel like most people don’t know much about the editors of their favorite journals so seeing or not seeing their names on the masthead won’t change much.
Maybe I’m wrong though?
It’s not an issue of whether or not the editors are names at all. It’s an issue of who’s accountable. For instance, when DiGangi got pissed and pulled a story Butler wrote, we knew exactly who had done it. Anonymous editor does the same thing, we have no clue who did it. Or the magazine accepts a bunch of material and then folds without a word before publishing the material. Nathan Tyree did this with Prairie Dog 13 a few years back. Doesn’t change my opinion of his writing, but if I saw his name on a masthead again, it’d more than likely keep me from submitting.
Anonymous editors remove a piece of information that’s valuable to writers who should be aware of where they’re submitting.
It’s not an issue of whether or not the editors are names at all. It’s an issue of who’s accountable. For instance, when DiGangi got pissed and pulled a story Butler wrote, we knew exactly who had done it. Anonymous editor does the same thing, we have no clue who did it. Or the magazine accepts a bunch of material and then folds without a word before publishing the material. Nathan Tyree did this with Prairie Dog 13 a few years back. Doesn’t change my opinion of his writing, but if I saw his name on a masthead again, it’d more than likely keep me from submitting.
Anonymous editors remove a piece of information that’s valuable to writers who should be aware of where they’re submitting.
And, btw, I have no interest in witch-hunting to find who the anonymous editors are. I just know that I’d not submit there. Pretty simple.
And, btw, I have no interest in witch-hunting to find who the anonymous editors are. I just know that I’d not submit there. Pretty simple.
I understand what you’re saying. I guess I just don’t… think it’s as big an issue as others. Magazines fold all the time, whether or not the editors are anonymous, in print and online. Editors behave badly all the time. Anonymity is not a barrier to that sort of thing.
I understand what you’re saying. I guess I just don’t… think it’s as big an issue as others. Magazines fold all the time, whether or not the editors are anonymous, in print and online. Editors behave badly all the time. Anonymity is not a barrier to that sort of thing.
Sorry.
The PD13 thing was a cluster fuck all around and I owe apologies to many people.
Sorry.
The PD13 thing was a cluster fuck all around and I owe apologies to many people.
No worries, Nathan. Finally pulled the story back out and it’ll be in the next Dogzplot. Yours was the one name I could find googling quickly of several journals this happened with (as Roxane mentions, mags fold all the time).
Roxane, you’re right in that anonymity is not a barrier. I think it’s an enabler in the same way that people posting anonymous comments to blogs generally are less compelled to be remotely civil.
And I totally agree with Darby about KA’s doing more to perpetuate the “story” than anyone else. I couldn’t tell you the kind of content that they like/publish, but I obviously know about this whole anonymous editor deal there, because they keep pimping it. Could they maybe spend just a LITTLE of that time pimping their content instead? Or is this their way of killing the authors?
No worries, Nathan. Finally pulled the story back out and it’ll be in the next Dogzplot. Yours was the one name I could find googling quickly of several journals this happened with (as Roxane mentions, mags fold all the time).
Roxane, you’re right in that anonymity is not a barrier. I think it’s an enabler in the same way that people posting anonymous comments to blogs generally are less compelled to be remotely civil.
And I totally agree with Darby about KA’s doing more to perpetuate the “story” than anyone else. I couldn’t tell you the kind of content that they like/publish, but I obviously know about this whole anonymous editor deal there, because they keep pimping it. Could they maybe spend just a LITTLE of that time pimping their content instead? Or is this their way of killing the authors?
“how many editors exert such a weight over the journals”
While this isn’t the topic of the post, I’d disagree with the idea that many editors do not. It’s why personally the bulk of the journals that I really, really get behind, are independent and not university related. Not all, because there are some university related that have a strong, long-standing, editorial presence (MAR for instance with Mike C. and Karen Craigo).
But a journal like Hobart? Aaron Burch makes every decision on what goes in. If I have the same sensibilities as Aaron does, I’m probably going to like nearly every story of every issue he publishes. Same with Steven Seighman and Monkeybicycle, or Steven McDermott and Storyglossia, J.A. Tyler with what he’s doing with MLP, etc. Those journals develop an aesthetic that I believe I can trust when I pick up a new issue.
Again, not really relevant to the main topic of this post. The only thing I can see that I’d wonder about in a journal like >Kill Author is how frequently the editors were publishing themselves in a non-Editor’s Note manner. It’s something that jumps out at me when reading journals, when an editor publishes her/himself. Most of the time I find myself liking the piece, but still believing it would have been better off had they submitted and published it elsewhere. That’s a personal preference though, or personal belief I suppose.
“how many editors exert such a weight over the journals”
While this isn’t the topic of the post, I’d disagree with the idea that many editors do not. It’s why personally the bulk of the journals that I really, really get behind, are independent and not university related. Not all, because there are some university related that have a strong, long-standing, editorial presence (MAR for instance with Mike C. and Karen Craigo).
But a journal like Hobart? Aaron Burch makes every decision on what goes in. If I have the same sensibilities as Aaron does, I’m probably going to like nearly every story of every issue he publishes. Same with Steven Seighman and Monkeybicycle, or Steven McDermott and Storyglossia, J.A. Tyler with what he’s doing with MLP, etc. Those journals develop an aesthetic that I believe I can trust when I pick up a new issue.
Again, not really relevant to the main topic of this post. The only thing I can see that I’d wonder about in a journal like >Kill Author is how frequently the editors were publishing themselves in a non-Editor’s Note manner. It’s something that jumps out at me when reading journals, when an editor publishes her/himself. Most of the time I find myself liking the piece, but still believing it would have been better off had they submitted and published it elsewhere. That’s a personal preference though, or personal belief I suppose.
I think I must have worded that badly, because I did not mean that most journals don’t have a strong editorial presence in terms of crafting an aesthetic or that the tastes of the editors don’t determine the content. I think that is normally true, certainly true for the magazine that I co-edit. Every single aspect of Gigantic is decided by us.
None of that has to do with author anonymity though, does it? A journal will develop an aesthetic and style whether or not the editor is named. If Karen Craigo and Mike C. used pen names or erased their names, it wouldn’t change how MAR comes out. I’m sure Kill Author has a style that is a result of the editors personality and tastes.
I thought the argument for going anonymous had more to do with the strong personality or knowledge of famous editor influencing how you read the fiction pieces? I can see that happening with a handful of journals, but for all intents and purposes most editors might as well be anonymous because the vast majority of the readers and submitters probably know nothing about the editors of any given journal, right?
I think I must have worded that badly, because I did not mean that most journals don’t have a strong editorial presence in terms of crafting an aesthetic or that the tastes of the editors don’t determine the content. I think that is normally true, certainly true for the magazine that I co-edit. Every single aspect of Gigantic is decided by us.
None of that has to do with author anonymity though, does it? A journal will develop an aesthetic and style whether or not the editor is named. If Karen Craigo and Mike C. used pen names or erased their names, it wouldn’t change how MAR comes out. I’m sure Kill Author has a style that is a result of the editors personality and tastes.
I thought the argument for going anonymous had more to do with the strong personality or knowledge of famous editor influencing how you read the fiction pieces? I can see that happening with a handful of journals, but for all intents and purposes most editors might as well be anonymous because the vast majority of the readers and submitters probably know nothing about the editors of any given journal, right?
Lincoln,
I see where you were going now – do you really think though that people read stories in The Quarterly differently because they knew Gordon Lish was the editor? As in, I think this story sucks, but I must be wrong, Lish published it?
I do agree that for the most part many authors don’t seem to know all that much about the editors they submit to. Obviously not across the board – my guess is the group of writers contributing and/or reading here might be more on top of things like that than a general group of submitting authors.
Lincoln,
I see where you were going now – do you really think though that people read stories in The Quarterly differently because they knew Gordon Lish was the editor? As in, I think this story sucks, but I must be wrong, Lish published it?
I do agree that for the most part many authors don’t seem to know all that much about the editors they submit to. Obviously not across the board – my guess is the group of writers contributing and/or reading here might be more on top of things like that than a general group of submitting authors.
Word. I mean I’m not trying to argue what or what doesn’t happen when Lish’s name (or someone similar) is attached, I’m just trying to get the point of going anon as editors. Clearly these people think that something about knowing the editors name affects the way you read, right? I’m only saying that I can only see that as possibly the case for a handful of journals…
Even if you or I know the names of the editors of the journals we submit to, we likely don’t know them as people or as “figures” (in the way Lish was/is a towering literary figure) or even as fiction writers.
So what is changed if a basically anonymous person’s name is removed?
Word. I mean I’m not trying to argue what or what doesn’t happen when Lish’s name (or someone similar) is attached, I’m just trying to get the point of going anon as editors. Clearly these people think that something about knowing the editors name affects the way you read, right? I’m only saying that I can only see that as possibly the case for a handful of journals…
Even if you or I know the names of the editors of the journals we submit to, we likely don’t know them as people or as “figures” (in the way Lish was/is a towering literary figure) or even as fiction writers.
So what is changed if a basically anonymous person’s name is removed?