April 21st, 2010 / 12:10 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
When you are reading or editing an issue of a magazine, do you perform a contributor penis and vagina count, to verify a decent mix? Do you perform a race count? Do you verify the range of the letters in the last names?
i have not been doing that, but i am pleased that there are a fairly equal number of men and women involved with my thing, and a decent range of races/countries.
i have not been doing that, but i am pleased that there are a fairly equal number of men and women involved with my thing, and a decent range of races/countries.
nope. don’t care.
nope. don’t care.
I did the last one blind and it had many penises and vagina and creeds and so on. Was I pleased to see that? A little. But the submissions were read blind.
I did the last one blind and it had many penises and vagina and creeds and so on. Was I pleased to see that? A little. But the submissions were read blind.
Nope
Nope
I ran a small online journal called Hot Metal Bridge for a year, and I can’t remember ever doing this. However, after taking a look back at one of my issues, it seemed to work itself out rather nicely. Here’s the list of fiction contributors:
Rachel Belloma
Dean Bakopoulos
John Fulton
Michael Joyce
Melissa Moorer
Ranbir Sidhu
So I guess my question would be, if you’re not on the lookout for an equal distribution of gender/race, what do you do if you get the final batch of stories and realize they’re all white males or Asian women or what have you? Choose other material? Call it a theme issue? I’m curious what other editors think about this.
I ran a small online journal called Hot Metal Bridge for a year, and I can’t remember ever doing this. However, after taking a look back at one of my issues, it seemed to work itself out rather nicely. Here’s the list of fiction contributors:
Rachel Belloma
Dean Bakopoulos
John Fulton
Michael Joyce
Melissa Moorer
Ranbir Sidhu
So I guess my question would be, if you’re not on the lookout for an equal distribution of gender/race, what do you do if you get the final batch of stories and realize they’re all white males or Asian women or what have you? Choose other material? Call it a theme issue? I’m curious what other editors think about this.
1) Oh hell yes. 2) ?? 3) hahahahahahaha
4) also, country check, influence surveillance, genre/style rebalancing, and a report on what random words recur throughout the magazine/anthology
1) Oh hell yes. 2) ?? 3) hahahahahahaha
4) also, country check, influence surveillance, genre/style rebalancing, and a report on what random words recur throughout the magazine/anthology
I do definitely. I find it very problematic when publications are too male-heavy, or female-heavy, or race-heavy, or whatever-heavy.
Not that I would venture to tell somebody else to do it a more “diverse” way, nor do I think anybody necessarily should. If somebody finds these markers irrelevant to the writing, than that’s fine too. I would probably still read their magazine, if the writing was good, but I would see their lack of diversity as a general weakness of the publication.
I understand, I think, the philosophical issues these practices could bring up — i.e., where does one “draw the line” with diversity? — but I think what I’d like to do, anyway, with a publication, is to have as much diversity of perspective as is possible within the aesthetic, thematic and formal limitations of the publication.
To overlook, or ignore, diversity in the contributors and — something we haven’t talked about yet in this post — their *contributions* serves, I think, to unnecessarily constrain the scope and pull of the work therein. This goes for gender and race but also for economic background, sexuality, MFA program/non-MFA program, magical realism, Kmart realism, whatever.
Simply put, there are too many solid writers out there, with solid writing, to only publish a limited subset of work.
It’s not like I’m out there going “we need somebody of either South Asian or better yet North Australian descent who is also vegan and/or alternatively life-styled and whose last name doesn’t start with an S” — or maybe I am. I don’t know. There’s a lot of gray area when it comes to this sort of thing, but but basically having an all-male list of contributors, especially if there are a lot of them, is highly problematic to me, as a reader, and so, also as an editor.
I do definitely. I find it very problematic when publications are too male-heavy, or female-heavy, or race-heavy, or whatever-heavy.
Not that I would venture to tell somebody else to do it a more “diverse” way, nor do I think anybody necessarily should. If somebody finds these markers irrelevant to the writing, than that’s fine too. I would probably still read their magazine, if the writing was good, but I would see their lack of diversity as a general weakness of the publication.
I understand, I think, the philosophical issues these practices could bring up — i.e., where does one “draw the line” with diversity? — but I think what I’d like to do, anyway, with a publication, is to have as much diversity of perspective as is possible within the aesthetic, thematic and formal limitations of the publication.
To overlook, or ignore, diversity in the contributors and — something we haven’t talked about yet in this post — their *contributions* serves, I think, to unnecessarily constrain the scope and pull of the work therein. This goes for gender and race but also for economic background, sexuality, MFA program/non-MFA program, magical realism, Kmart realism, whatever.
Simply put, there are too many solid writers out there, with solid writing, to only publish a limited subset of work.
It’s not like I’m out there going “we need somebody of either South Asian or better yet North Australian descent who is also vegan and/or alternatively life-styled and whose last name doesn’t start with an S” — or maybe I am. I don’t know. There’s a lot of gray area when it comes to this sort of thing, but but basically having an all-male list of contributors, especially if there are a lot of them, is highly problematic to me, as a reader, and so, also as an editor.
Interesting. That brings up another really good point about aesthetic diversity. This is something I always watched for because, ideally, I wanted a solid mix of flash fiction, realism, and wackier/postmodern stuff. Does this factor into your decisions at all? Would you be more likely to publish an issue with diverse (in terms of race/gender) authors who all write realism or less diverse authors who are aesthetically diverse?
Interesting. That brings up another really good point about aesthetic diversity. This is something I always watched for because, ideally, I wanted a solid mix of flash fiction, realism, and wackier/postmodern stuff. Does this factor into your decisions at all? Would you be more likely to publish an issue with diverse (in terms of race/gender) authors who all write realism or less diverse authors who are aesthetically diverse?
We keep a greater track of kinds of stories we have. A lot of what we get is weird love/relationship stories between two characters, so we often find ourselves turning down good stuff in that vein if we have a lot of it.
A lot of granting agencies are interested in the demographics of a journal’s contributors, though. I’m not always sure how to tell. Male and Female is mostly easy, but apart from that, what can you do? Guess based on names? That seems a bit unsavory.
I think the questions of aesthetic diversity and background diversity are quite different. I don’t see anything wrong with aesthetically guided magazines. In fact, most magazines fail to stand out in anyway because they all publish the same broad range of stuff from the same authors and the magazines all blend together. Obviously you don’t want to get too narrow…. but I tend to find aesthetically guided magazines to be the most interesting really.
We keep a greater track of kinds of stories we have. A lot of what we get is weird love/relationship stories between two characters, so we often find ourselves turning down good stuff in that vein if we have a lot of it.
A lot of granting agencies are interested in the demographics of a journal’s contributors, though. I’m not always sure how to tell. Male and Female is mostly easy, but apart from that, what can you do? Guess based on names? That seems a bit unsavory.
I think the questions of aesthetic diversity and background diversity are quite different. I don’t see anything wrong with aesthetically guided magazines. In fact, most magazines fail to stand out in anyway because they all publish the same broad range of stuff from the same authors and the magazines all blend together. Obviously you don’t want to get too narrow…. but I tend to find aesthetically guided magazines to be the most interesting really.
Heeeey-
This is one of the few “short n’ snarky” ones I’m on board with.
Heeeey-
This is one of the few “short n’ snarky” ones I’m on board with.
i based my choices solely on my own taste, with a little randomness based on a few unsolicited submissions. i think i prefer the “auteur editor,” roughly speaking. then the reader knows “this stuff means something to this one person, even though it originates from diverse authors.” maybe that is a given, but i dunno, i imagine some editors make concessions to other concerns other than their taste. that is not to pooh-pooh diversity in the slightest. i imagine it’s particularly relevant in bigger, non-niche magazines. i did think a bit about aesthetic diversity, and i was cognizant of gender/racial diversity but not “hung up on it at all,” whatever that means. i think my choices are ultimately based on my taste, intuition, and luck/chance.
i based my choices solely on my own taste, with a little randomness based on a few unsolicited submissions. i think i prefer the “auteur editor,” roughly speaking. then the reader knows “this stuff means something to this one person, even though it originates from diverse authors.” maybe that is a given, but i dunno, i imagine some editors make concessions to other concerns other than their taste. that is not to pooh-pooh diversity in the slightest. i imagine it’s particularly relevant in bigger, non-niche magazines. i did think a bit about aesthetic diversity, and i was cognizant of gender/racial diversity but not “hung up on it at all,” whatever that means. i think my choices are ultimately based on my taste, intuition, and luck/chance.
I wouldn’t want to get too much into what I’d publish personally, persay, but I think the aesthetic is the first concern, as opposed to equal and broad representation to all. At the same time, I think if only men or women or people of a certain race or religion or something seemed to be included within that aesthetic, I’d find that strange and wonder why that is.
I wouldn’t want to get too much into what I’d publish personally, persay, but I think the aesthetic is the first concern, as opposed to equal and broad representation to all. At the same time, I think if only men or women or people of a certain race or religion or something seemed to be included within that aesthetic, I’d find that strange and wonder why that is.
if i were running a magazine and found that 100% of my contributors for an issue were all male, i’d be pretty embarrassed.
if i were running a magazine and found that 100% of my contributors for an issue were all male, i’d be pretty embarrassed.
Sausage Quarterly
Sausage Quarterly
so then the idea that the author and the language are not one and the same is not applicable?
that is, there is some social element inherent in what is made by a person, and in some situations stronger work could be passed aside for something that fits a non-aesthetic criteria?
i realize there are ways around this, but this the dictum at the base of what you are saying.
so then the idea that the author and the language are not one and the same is not applicable?
that is, there is some social element inherent in what is made by a person, and in some situations stronger work could be passed aside for something that fits a non-aesthetic criteria?
i realize there are ways around this, but this the dictum at the base of what you are saying.
i am going to start asking submitters with names like Jan Richards and A. Wethersby to send pictures of their genitals if they want to have their work read. just so i know what kind of stats their language is carrying.
i am going to start asking submitters with names like Jan Richards and A. Wethersby to send pictures of their genitals if they want to have their work read. just so i know what kind of stats their language is carrying.
would you be embarassed if you found out 100% of your contributors were female?
would you be embarassed if you found out 100% of your contributors were female?
No, but I do look for names ending in -berg or -stein or -man.
No, but I do look for names ending in -berg or -stein or -man.
“You Guessed It Quarterly”
“Po-Mo(re) of the Same Annual”
“GIANT Dicks Review”
“Males Fail Better Journal”
do you think “i am proud” when you publish a woman? isn’t that worse than just publishing the work that moves you, or moves?
“You Guessed It Quarterly”
“Po-Mo(re) of the Same Annual”
“GIANT Dicks Review”
“Males Fail Better Journal”
do you think “i am proud” when you publish a woman? isn’t that worse than just publishing the work that moves you, or moves?
Yeah, I kind of agree with the idea that magazines with too broad aesthetics usually fail to please anyone. The magazine I edited had a policy where all editorial positions had to change hands after two years (most after one), and because of that, we felt a little handcuffed. Why bother setting up an aesthetic preference if you think someone will take over in two years and completely turn what you’ve done on its head?
Yeah, I kind of agree with the idea that magazines with too broad aesthetics usually fail to please anyone. The magazine I edited had a policy where all editorial positions had to change hands after two years (most after one), and because of that, we felt a little handcuffed. Why bother setting up an aesthetic preference if you think someone will take over in two years and completely turn what you’ve done on its head?
i have not thought that, no. or i should say, in anticipation i have not thought that, and later, when it’s actually published, i don’t think i’ll think that
shots fired?
i have not thought that, no. or i should say, in anticipation i have not thought that, and later, when it’s actually published, i don’t think i’ll think that
shots fired?
there is a quote i like by duchamps: “i don’t believe in art. i believe in artists.”
there is a quote i like by duchamps: “i don’t believe in art. i believe in artists.”
All editors like to think that they are gender-blind and only care about good writing … but if a journal consistently publishes more men than women, or an issue consisting only of men, then the editors should at least consider/question their own gender biases. The editors may decide they are fine with being biased. But to claim they have no gender biases, when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise, is somewhat infuriating. If all an editor cares about is good writing, and the editor is not biased, they will naturally publish a diverse mix of authors.
All editors like to think that they are gender-blind and only care about good writing … but if a journal consistently publishes more men than women, or an issue consisting only of men, then the editors should at least consider/question their own gender biases. The editors may decide they are fine with being biased. But to claim they have no gender biases, when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise, is somewhat infuriating. If all an editor cares about is good writing, and the editor is not biased, they will naturally publish a diverse mix of authors.
which is to say, i would understand your frustration if you felt someone was getting ahead not because of the quality of their work but because of who they are or because of hand-outs based on Political Correctness, but i feel i am accepting a person and their work to a magazine, and the work is a reflection of them, and because i strive to love men and women and all races equally, there will “naturally” be work i love by various different “kinds” of people (or at least i hope so, and i’m 1 for 1 testing this). but that’s just me, of course.
I am going to quote you now Elisa: “Publish the poem, not the poet.”
Is diversity only based in flesh? I know we’re Americans, but there is more than one way to do diverse.
I think this is a good point – we can make a guess about the genitals of a contributor based on the gender suggested by their name, but we don’t really know (male/female/trans). I’m not sure how editors would even begin to guess at the skin color of their contributors. I think over time one would expect to see a range of both male and female names in their contributor list, though.
which is to say, i would understand your frustration if you felt someone was getting ahead not because of the quality of their work but because of who they are or because of hand-outs based on Political Correctness, but i feel i am accepting a person and their work to a magazine, and the work is a reflection of them, and because i strive to love men and women and all races equally, there will “naturally” be work i love by various different “kinds” of people (or at least i hope so, and i’m 1 for 1 testing this). but that’s just me, of course.
I am going to quote you now Elisa: “Publish the poem, not the poet.”
Is diversity only based in flesh? I know we’re Americans, but there is more than one way to do diverse.
I think this is a good point – we can make a guess about the genitals of a contributor based on the gender suggested by their name, but we don’t really know (male/female/trans). I’m not sure how editors would even begin to guess at the skin color of their contributors. I think over time one would expect to see a range of both male and female names in their contributor list, though.
i “feel” the person in the work, ideally, and respond to that person, and thus to their gender as it expresses itself, or something, amongst many other considerations, in a way that i can’t intelligently describe. so i can’t completely cut off the person from the words. once again, just me.
i “feel” the person in the work, ideally, and respond to that person, and thus to their gender as it expresses itself, or something, amongst many other considerations, in a way that i can’t intelligently describe. so i can’t completely cut off the person from the words. once again, just me.
If I believed I had no gender biases, I would be, yes. If I was aware that I preferred writing by women, no.
When it happens with men, the editors should be willing to consider the possibility that they prefer writing by men. But generally they refuse to admit they might have a gender bias. Why?
I have also had the experience of editing a journal where (if my assumptions based on names are correct) most of the submissions were from men. That changed over time, but maybe there’s also a gender bias from contributors?
If I believed I had no gender biases, I would be, yes. If I was aware that I preferred writing by women, no.
When it happens with men, the editors should be willing to consider the possibility that they prefer writing by men. But generally they refuse to admit they might have a gender bias. Why?
I have also had the experience of editing a journal where (if my assumptions based on names are correct) most of the submissions were from men. That changed over time, but maybe there’s also a gender bias from contributors?
I do not peek at contributors’ private parts but I have always paid attention to this issue. I like when people aim for perfect mathematical balances, but since this is usually impossible (androgynous names, no way to tell race or ethnicity, etc.), I think the thing to aim for is really just AWARENESS. A little checklist at the end of the initial round of acceptances wouldn’t kill ya. It would probably teach you something really useful and productive about your own biases. Because no matter what anyone says, it is impossible for me to believe that certain editors just sorta instinctively enjoy poems by dudes exclusively, and that this has nothing to do with the names attached to the poems.
My hunch is that most people who “don’t care” have the privilege known as Not Caring. Usually the privilege of Middle-To-Upper-Class Able-Bodied White Guys.
I think it’d be really interesting if, in addition to stating their opinions, commenters here would also self-identify as to gender, race, age, class, etc.
I am a 28-year-old white girlady of the class “graduate student.”
I do not peek at contributors’ private parts but I have always paid attention to this issue. I like when people aim for perfect mathematical balances, but since this is usually impossible (androgynous names, no way to tell race or ethnicity, etc.), I think the thing to aim for is really just AWARENESS. A little checklist at the end of the initial round of acceptances wouldn’t kill ya. It would probably teach you something really useful and productive about your own biases. Because no matter what anyone says, it is impossible for me to believe that certain editors just sorta instinctively enjoy poems by dudes exclusively, and that this has nothing to do with the names attached to the poems.
My hunch is that most people who “don’t care” have the privilege known as Not Caring. Usually the privilege of Middle-To-Upper-Class Able-Bodied White Guys.
I think it’d be really interesting if, in addition to stating their opinions, commenters here would also self-identify as to gender, race, age, class, etc.
I am a 28-year-old white girlady of the class “graduate student.”
Why is it wrong to question why you’re never moved by work by a woman? Not you, but the hypothetical editor who just publishes what moves them, if what moves them is always work by one gender? Shouldn’t that be questioned? If you looked at your music collection and realized you didn’t listen to any music by black musicians, wouldn’t you feel a little embarrassed and question it?
Ok, Barnes and Noble Rediscovery Series?
in my case, every single contributor had like a website and i could look at it and find out something or other about them. or else i knew them in real life. this is exciting/satisfying to me.
Why is it wrong to question why you’re never moved by work by a woman? Not you, but the hypothetical editor who just publishes what moves them, if what moves them is always work by one gender? Shouldn’t that be questioned? If you looked at your music collection and realized you didn’t listen to any music by black musicians, wouldn’t you feel a little embarrassed and question it?
Ok, Barnes and Noble Rediscovery Series?
in my case, every single contributor had like a website and i could look at it and find out something or other about them. or else i knew them in real life. this is exciting/satisfying to me.
Bios tend to be written in the third person and include a pronoun. HOT TIP
also, my contributors have all been asked for photographs for the contributors section at the end.
i did a contest last year with open submission calls. i had 220 submissions. 4 were from females. the guidelines were posted in various places open to all. maybe i smell, but i do believe that in general there are often a much higher % of subs from males. don’t know why that is. but then again, i honestly rarely consider gender when i am looking at words.
Bios tend to be written in the third person and include a pronoun. HOT TIP
also, my contributors have all been asked for photographs for the contributors section at the end.
i did a contest last year with open submission calls. i had 220 submissions. 4 were from females. the guidelines were posted in various places open to all. maybe i smell, but i do believe that in general there are often a much higher % of subs from males. don’t know why that is. but then again, i honestly rarely consider gender when i am looking at words.
I mean, there is a place for journals like that, but nowadays almost every journal has a broad undefined aesthetic, so i’m surprised when people talk about a more rigid aesthetic in a few read magazines as being bad.
I mean, there is a place for journals like that, but nowadays almost every journal has a broad undefined aesthetic, so i’m surprised when people talk about a more rigid aesthetic in a few read magazines as being bad.
I don’t read bios of contributors until after i’ve made a call on the piece. Most of the time I don’t have bios to look at if I wanted to read them. I’m not arguing that there’s not gender bias, I’m just acknowledging that Blake makes a good point that it’s not as simple as deciding a person’s gender based on a name.
I don’t read bios of contributors until after i’ve made a call on the piece. Most of the time I don’t have bios to look at if I wanted to read them. I’m not arguing that there’s not gender bias, I’m just acknowledging that Blake makes a good point that it’s not as simple as deciding a person’s gender based on a name.
Blake, that post was about reputation, not gender.
It’s easy for me to publish good poems by women. I don’t go out of my way to do it. I don’t have to publish subpar work to include an equal number of women contributors. I don’t edit with a quota. It just happens, because I get good submissions from both men and women. If women aren’t submitted to something (or commenting on your blog, or whatever), I think it’s fair to at least question whether you’re creating an environment that seems hostile to women.
Blake, that post was about reputation, not gender.
It’s easy for me to publish good poems by women. I don’t go out of my way to do it. I don’t have to publish subpar work to include an equal number of women contributors. I don’t edit with a quota. It just happens, because I get good submissions from both men and women. If women aren’t submitted to something (or commenting on your blog, or whatever), I think it’s fair to at least question whether you’re creating an environment that seems hostile to women.
I think there *are* often differences in the work, and also in communication styles, which affects submitting, commenting in comment streams, etc.
A lot of what’s been happening is that women are now more “acceptable” not writing on “women’s themes.” So there’s less difference in subject matter.
The problem with a lot of the aesthetic definition is that it is very easy to prefer writing written by someone more like you than otherwise, be it race, gender, education, hobbies, whatever. So, yes, I think if one is ending up with all male or all MFA issues, and one is really interested in defining an aesthetic, one might have to come to conclusions like, “I just tend to prefer work written by men” or “only men are writing great flash fiction about sausage.” And accept responsibility for that, that one has a bias.
I myself have limited much of my reading to women in order to try to define why writing by women is different. I have to admit, it is more difficult for me to find certain types of fiction written by women. That doesn’t mean that I give up. And c’mon, what about those transgendered writers?
I think there *are* often differences in the work, and also in communication styles, which affects submitting, commenting in comment streams, etc.
A lot of what’s been happening is that women are now more “acceptable” not writing on “women’s themes.” So there’s less difference in subject matter.
The problem with a lot of the aesthetic definition is that it is very easy to prefer writing written by someone more like you than otherwise, be it race, gender, education, hobbies, whatever. So, yes, I think if one is ending up with all male or all MFA issues, and one is really interested in defining an aesthetic, one might have to come to conclusions like, “I just tend to prefer work written by men” or “only men are writing great flash fiction about sausage.” And accept responsibility for that, that one has a bias.
I myself have limited much of my reading to women in order to try to define why writing by women is different. I have to admit, it is more difficult for me to find certain types of fiction written by women. That doesn’t mean that I give up. And c’mon, what about those transgendered writers?
Elisa,
Hi! Look at what your favorite blog commenter is looking for: strength, power, a “monster” writer. Etc. He is trying to put out a “product.” In the eyes of the market (that which produces, that which makes writing a product), he is doing his job. And his representatives are not writing anything (at least that I read) that really puts that into question.
The gender breakdown is definitely an issue, but would you want to be part of that sort of editorial vision?
Just some thoughts, if they are indeed that.
Warmly,
Laura
with my roommates, i kind of like the old “we all pitch in, shit gets done” thing vs. “you have these 3 chores on this day, i have these 3, she has these 3, there’s a schedule on the refrigerator, [teeth, growling]…” if you catch my drift… probably just cause i hate math or precision or something, hehe… thanks for your comment, though, becca, ‘just’ sharing preferences. you’re right about Not Caring being a privilege. one can’t eliminate facts, data, history, etc. it’s hard to see a logical way of avoiding that truth—one can provide diversions, and i see where blake’s coming from, but it seems like wishful thinking to me (or else, unattractive thinking to me, only because i don’t want words to be words and i don’t think they are—i think people write words—Theory be damned!).
i’m not sure about others, but for me it’s not a question of never being moved by women. i could make a long list of those that have been huge for me. so i’m not sure i see that it is always the case of never being moved by such a node. it’s more a question of the mix that comes over the transom.
all that said, for others it could conceivably be surely a bias. but i think to assume it is that bias at work is as much a fault as the other way around.
Elisa,
Hi! Look at what your favorite blog commenter is looking for: strength, power, a “monster” writer. Etc. He is trying to put out a “product.” In the eyes of the market (that which produces, that which makes writing a product), he is doing his job. And his representatives are not writing anything (at least that I read) that really puts that into question.
The gender breakdown is definitely an issue, but would you want to be part of that sort of editorial vision?
Just some thoughts, if they are indeed that.
Warmly,
Laura
with my roommates, i kind of like the old “we all pitch in, shit gets done” thing vs. “you have these 3 chores on this day, i have these 3, she has these 3, there’s a schedule on the refrigerator, [teeth, growling]…” if you catch my drift… probably just cause i hate math or precision or something, hehe… thanks for your comment, though, becca, ‘just’ sharing preferences. you’re right about Not Caring being a privilege. one can’t eliminate facts, data, history, etc. it’s hard to see a logical way of avoiding that truth—one can provide diversions, and i see where blake’s coming from, but it seems like wishful thinking to me (or else, unattractive thinking to me, only because i don’t want words to be words and i don’t think they are—i think people write words—Theory be damned!).
i’m not sure about others, but for me it’s not a question of never being moved by women. i could make a long list of those that have been huge for me. so i’m not sure i see that it is always the case of never being moved by such a node. it’s more a question of the mix that comes over the transom.
all that said, for others it could conceivably be surely a bias. but i think to assume it is that bias at work is as much a fault as the other way around.
sure, i understand that’s what you meant, but in definition the gender and class is as much part of a personal dragged-behind ‘reputation’ as the work they’ve published prior, no?
i’ll admit, i’ve gotten more sensitive to these issues since taking fire here regularly over the last year on them. i still won’t buy into the idea that for me language is not about the body, but i’m at least trying to be more aware of what is what in presentation, particularly in this format, where it is less ‘creative’ work and more for a public goal.
sure, i understand that’s what you meant, but in definition the gender and class is as much part of a personal dragged-behind ‘reputation’ as the work they’ve published prior, no?
i’ll admit, i’ve gotten more sensitive to these issues since taking fire here regularly over the last year on them. i still won’t buy into the idea that for me language is not about the body, but i’m at least trying to be more aware of what is what in presentation, particularly in this format, where it is less ‘creative’ work and more for a public goal.
i like your points, elisa.
i like your points, elisa.
well, could it be just that htmlgiant and some of your other hubs are male-dominated? no snark, just thinking
well, could it be just that htmlgiant and some of your other hubs are male-dominated? no snark, just thinking
well, even if one goes with your opinion, and words are words, the body behind the words “doesn’t matter,” or is irrelevant, whatever, doesn’t that then mean that if you (not necessarily you, blake, the editor) “just happens” to select mostly, almost all guys, does that imply or establish some sort of objective preeminence of male writers? can one get away from that implication given the context and the assertions behind it? and if that is the case, is that “OK”/neutral/irrelevant to you? i’m not shooting any shots or giving you any fire, just trying to be helpful to the discussion.
well, even if one goes with your opinion, and words are words, the body behind the words “doesn’t matter,” or is irrelevant, whatever, doesn’t that then mean that if you (not necessarily you, blake, the editor) “just happens” to select mostly, almost all guys, does that imply or establish some sort of objective preeminence of male writers? can one get away from that implication given the context and the assertions behind it? and if that is the case, is that “OK”/neutral/irrelevant to you? i’m not shooting any shots or giving you any fire, just trying to be helpful to the discussion.
perhaps the root issue is this idea of objective aesthetic greatness, or better than in art. that seems to be the root issue. as long as one clings to this notion, one can justify just about anything
perhaps the root issue is this idea of objective aesthetic greatness, or better than in art. that seems to be the root issue. as long as one clings to this notion, one can justify just about anything
[…] “When you are reading or editing an issue of a magazine, do you perform a contributor penis an… […]
I think it’s interesting that this discussion is (mostly) based on gender – something that we assume can be known based on gendered pronouns in a bio, gendered names, etc. How many contributors are straight? Gay? Somewhere in the middle? How many are trans? What about race? What about American versus international writers? I’m not saying that gender bias isn’t important, but I think it’s interesting that it’s the one thing we think we can know based on a name, where the others are impossible to know, so why not take gender out of the equation and only accept blind submissions?
I think it’s interesting that this discussion is (mostly) based on gender – something that we assume can be known based on gendered pronouns in a bio, gendered names, etc. How many contributors are straight? Gay? Somewhere in the middle? How many are trans? What about race? What about American versus international writers? I’m not saying that gender bias isn’t important, but I think it’s interesting that it’s the one thing we think we can know based on a name, where the others are impossible to know, so why not take gender out of the equation and only accept blind submissions?
i was intrigued in my virginia woolf seminar in college to hear someone or other that we read auxiliary to the texts, maybe it was even woolf herself, memory’s not serving me, talking about a “feminine kind of writing.” i think it’s impossible to define or refer to such a thing without raising the ire of literalists and feminists of various stripes who prefer “no generalizations,” but i thought it was nice, in some way, thinking about those drifting, gorgeous, semicolon-rich sentences as feminine. felt nice to me.
but really, considering gender/race over past work seems totally off balance, in the light of considering the poem, not the poet. how are those social elements more weighty in the aesthetic consideration than the credence of someone who has built some kind of weight out of their prior work?
i was intrigued in my virginia woolf seminar in college to hear someone or other that we read auxiliary to the texts, maybe it was even woolf herself, memory’s not serving me, talking about a “feminine kind of writing.” i think it’s impossible to define or refer to such a thing without raising the ire of literalists and feminists of various stripes who prefer “no generalizations,” but i thought it was nice, in some way, thinking about those drifting, gorgeous, semicolon-rich sentences as feminine. felt nice to me.
but really, considering gender/race over past work seems totally off balance, in the light of considering the poem, not the poet. how are those social elements more weighty in the aesthetic consideration than the credence of someone who has built some kind of weight out of their prior work?
The issues we publish tend to shape themselves. The closer we get to print date I’ll notice that there’s a large amount of vaginas and not so many penises. Other issues, vice versa. I get kinda bummed when we publish way too many dudes. I like publishing girls a lot. I don’t know why. I love women and find everything they do infinitely interesting. If there’s an opposite to a misogynist then I may be that.
As far as race is concerned, most of our contributors are overwhelmingly white. I’m still not entirely sure why we don’t get many submissions from black or latino writers and it I’d feel stupid to speculate a concrete reason. Maybe we’re not on their radar, maybe they just don’t care about what we do. Maybe we’re too white. I dunno.
yes.
The issues we publish tend to shape themselves. The closer we get to print date I’ll notice that there’s a large amount of vaginas and not so many penises. Other issues, vice versa. I get kinda bummed when we publish way too many dudes. I like publishing girls a lot. I don’t know why. I love women and find everything they do infinitely interesting. If there’s an opposite to a misogynist then I may be that.
As far as race is concerned, most of our contributors are overwhelmingly white. I’m still not entirely sure why we don’t get many submissions from black or latino writers and it I’d feel stupid to speculate a concrete reason. Maybe we’re not on their radar, maybe they just don’t care about what we do. Maybe we’re too white. I dunno.
yes.
that’s a possible explanation stephen, but i’m not sure that it’s entirely true. i guess you’d have to compare to other venues, though i’ve read articles professing the same. either way, one never knows.
that’s a possible explanation stephen, but i’m not sure that it’s entirely true. i guess you’d have to compare to other venues, though i’ve read articles professing the same. either way, one never knows.
Gender blind is rarely gender neutral. And there are more than just penises and vaginas in the world; that language and framework falls into the trap of binary opposition where both sex and gender identity are concerned.
what we need is some transgender anti-capitalist radical new-wave fetish semiotics nu-femme pornoetry anti-text. sorry, just having fun (throwing blake a bone). warm regards
I would never a piece I liked less over a piece I liked more because of any gender/race/class/etc. issues. At the same time, I think it is fair to question biases and consider and I also don’t think it is always a question of publishing lesser work you’ve received over better work.
For example, at Gigantic we normally do three interviews an issue and we also solicit writers for special sections. If we realized the first three interview subjects we thought of were white men in their 50s (or for that matter hispanic lesbians or Canadian novelists or black comic artists, etc.) we would want to change that. It would make a better issue to change it and have more diversity.
I do think the point brought up above (and in earlier threads) about the % of men who submit versus women is a true and interesting one. Men are far more likely to submit and to submit widely. I bring this up not just to note one reason more men are published but also to encourage women writers here to submit as widely as the men.
Gender blind is rarely gender neutral. And there are more than just penises and vaginas in the world; that language and framework falls into the trap of binary opposition where both sex and gender identity are concerned.
what we need is some transgender anti-capitalist radical new-wave fetish semiotics nu-femme pornoetry anti-text. sorry, just having fun (throwing blake a bone). warm regards
I would never a piece I liked less over a piece I liked more because of any gender/race/class/etc. issues. At the same time, I think it is fair to question biases and consider and I also don’t think it is always a question of publishing lesser work you’ve received over better work.
For example, at Gigantic we normally do three interviews an issue and we also solicit writers for special sections. If we realized the first three interview subjects we thought of were white men in their 50s (or for that matter hispanic lesbians or Canadian novelists or black comic artists, etc.) we would want to change that. It would make a better issue to change it and have more diversity.
I do think the point brought up above (and in earlier threads) about the % of men who submit versus women is a true and interesting one. Men are far more likely to submit and to submit widely. I bring this up not just to note one reason more men are published but also to encourage women writers here to submit as widely as the men.
I think this discussion is mostly about gender because Blake is responding to some conversation about the fact that the new issue of We Are Champion has a 100% male contributor list.
My guess is the submissions weren’t read blind.
I think this discussion is mostly about gender because Blake is responding to some conversation about the fact that the new issue of We Are Champion has a 100% male contributor list.
My guess is the submissions weren’t read blind.
what about the children? does anyone care about the children?
hmm.. i get where you’re coming from, although just slightly confused because if words is words, then the text at hand matters more than an established reputation or the weight of prior work, right? maybe you want to consider both. i think that’s the key—-there really isn’t one consideration as an editor, of course, and i think the mind is too mischievous and strange to avoid thinking about 10 things at once while reading a submission. y’know???
what about the children? does anyone care about the children?
hmm.. i get where you’re coming from, although just slightly confused because if words is words, then the text at hand matters more than an established reputation or the weight of prior work, right? maybe you want to consider both. i think that’s the key—-there really isn’t one consideration as an editor, of course, and i think the mind is too mischievous and strange to avoid thinking about 10 things at once while reading a submission. y’know???
So yes, we will consider issues like gender and racial diversity, but not at the expense of the quality of work.
I’m not sure what I would do if I worked at a journal that was entirely slush and the only slush I liked was by white men (or black women or latino men or anything really). It isn’t a situation that has come up, luckily.
“but really, considering gender/race over past work seems totally off balance, in the light of considering the poem, not the poet.”
I don’t consider gender in the sense that I favor work written by women BECAUSE it is written by women. I consider gender in the larger sense: I am concerned about good work by women being neglected or having fewer outlets, and I’m interested in creating an outlet that can showcase good work by BOTH men and women. Publishing work only by men sends a message to women, and the message is “Don’t submit to this magazine. We prefer work by men.” I don’t want to send that message. I initially got more submissions from men, but I worked to change that.
i think i have sidestepped this issue this time out by seeking out people as opposed to them seeking me, so i already know i like them, and i am not at the mercy of my slush pile or something. also, already knowing them, i know who they are and also what they do.
So yes, we will consider issues like gender and racial diversity, but not at the expense of the quality of work.
I’m not sure what I would do if I worked at a journal that was entirely slush and the only slush I liked was by white men (or black women or latino men or anything really). It isn’t a situation that has come up, luckily.
“but really, considering gender/race over past work seems totally off balance, in the light of considering the poem, not the poet.”
I don’t consider gender in the sense that I favor work written by women BECAUSE it is written by women. I consider gender in the larger sense: I am concerned about good work by women being neglected or having fewer outlets, and I’m interested in creating an outlet that can showcase good work by BOTH men and women. Publishing work only by men sends a message to women, and the message is “Don’t submit to this magazine. We prefer work by men.” I don’t want to send that message. I initially got more submissions from men, but I worked to change that.
i think i have sidestepped this issue this time out by seeking out people as opposed to them seeking me, so i already know i like them, and i am not at the mercy of my slush pile or something. also, already knowing them, i know who they are and also what they do.
I think this is a really good point — once you start publishing a diverse selection of writers, people will look at your contributors list and be encouraged that might be a space for them in your magazine, too.
I think this is a really good point — once you start publishing a diverse selection of writers, people will look at your contributors list and be encouraged that might be a space for them in your magazine, too.
I think it’s the easy discussion to have because we think we can tell male versus female by a name. The other stuff is impossible to know without asking contributors to give out that information. I don’t know the magazine to which you’re referring, but how many of those contributors are gay, how many trans? We probably have no idea. Gender is important, but I think this discussion is leaning heavily on it because it’s the one demographic we think we can tell about a contributor based on name and pronoun.
As soon as I can figure out how to do it, I’m going to switch the journal I solo edit to blind submissions.
I think it’s the easy discussion to have because we think we can tell male versus female by a name. The other stuff is impossible to know without asking contributors to give out that information. I don’t know the magazine to which you’re referring, but how many of those contributors are gay, how many trans? We probably have no idea. Gender is important, but I think this discussion is leaning heavily on it because it’s the one demographic we think we can tell about a contributor based on name and pronoun.
As soon as I can figure out how to do it, I’m going to switch the journal I solo edit to blind submissions.
ha
ha
very reasonable, lincoln. just curious, though, when you say “lesser work,” “better work,” i could see what that would mean to the average person, substantial differences in sophistication of sentences, cohesive narrative, whatever, things like that, but given that a magazine of your caliber or whatever would probably “mostly” get “reasonably sophisticated” work (maybe, just guessing), can one really give out letter grades or like exact #s to the remaining pool, or is it just arbitrary/bias or taste-based? i’m just challenging objective ranking of art (you might not be the person to ask this of, not sure) no snark (i’m going to start using “no snark” like rappers use “no homo,” except without the icky, uh, homophobia element to it)
very reasonable, lincoln. just curious, though, when you say “lesser work,” “better work,” i could see what that would mean to the average person, substantial differences in sophistication of sentences, cohesive narrative, whatever, things like that, but given that a magazine of your caliber or whatever would probably “mostly” get “reasonably sophisticated” work (maybe, just guessing), can one really give out letter grades or like exact #s to the remaining pool, or is it just arbitrary/bias or taste-based? i’m just challenging objective ranking of art (you might not be the person to ask this of, not sure) no snark (i’m going to start using “no snark” like rappers use “no homo,” except without the icky, uh, homophobia element to it)
You can’t know for sure with anything, but name and bio can tell you lot about background. Most names from around the world do not sound like the list of graduates from Iowa. “Just saying”
You can’t know for sure with anything, but name and bio can tell you lot about background. Most names from around the world do not sound like the list of graduates from Iowa. “Just saying”
For the first issue of Spooky Boyfriend, I went out of my way to solicit work from women writers because no women had submitted at all. I think it’s important to strive, in whatever way(s) that can be accomplished, to have at least equal representation in literary magazines, because men have traditionally dominated these spaces.
For the first issue of Spooky Boyfriend, I went out of my way to solicit work from women writers because no women had submitted at all. I think it’s important to strive, in whatever way(s) that can be accomplished, to have at least equal representation in literary magazines, because men have traditionally dominated these spaces.
i get more submissions from women that i thought i would when i started abjective, but i think its because a lot of writers think im female because of my name, so i think there is something to say for women writers having more of a tendency to submit to female editors. just an observation though. i wouldnt care if i published 100% male or 100% female or 100% goat.
The trouble is, women aren’t “a range of letters in the last name.” We’re a tad bit more important than that. We aren’t a random statistical anomaly to ponder–we’re half of the population, and excluding us, whether intentional or accidental, is a practice that should be examined.
but accepting work to a magazine will never be some ideal, objective, blind contest
you can take the human out of the equation, which i personally find a touch inhumane or “un-fun,” but you can’t make it ideally fair or objectively fair
Ok, Numbers Trouble?
i get more submissions from women that i thought i would when i started abjective, but i think its because a lot of writers think im female because of my name, so i think there is something to say for women writers having more of a tendency to submit to female editors. just an observation though. i wouldnt care if i published 100% male or 100% female or 100% goat.
The trouble is, women aren’t “a range of letters in the last name.” We’re a tad bit more important than that. We aren’t a random statistical anomaly to ponder–we’re half of the population, and excluding us, whether intentional or accidental, is a practice that should be examined.
but accepting work to a magazine will never be some ideal, objective, blind contest
you can take the human out of the equation, which i personally find a touch inhumane or “un-fun,” but you can’t make it ideally fair or objectively fair
Ok, Numbers Trouble?
blind subs, the glory hole of contemporary literature
blind subs, the glory hole of contemporary literature
Hmm, yes I didn’t mean anything more than personal taste. Basically what I mean is that we at Gigantic have never rejected a slush piece because we thought we had too many contributors of said gender or race or anything like that. It isn’t something we factor in. However, we will strive for balance and diversity when we conduct interviews or solicit writers.
I’m not totally into the concept of pure relativism in art, but that’s probably for another thread!
Hmm, yes I didn’t mean anything more than personal taste. Basically what I mean is that we at Gigantic have never rejected a slush piece because we thought we had too many contributors of said gender or race or anything like that. It isn’t something we factor in. However, we will strive for balance and diversity when we conduct interviews or solicit writers.
I’m not totally into the concept of pure relativism in art, but that’s probably for another thread!
I publish under both male and female names even though my genitals suggest that I am only one of these.
I publish under both male and female names even though my genitals suggest that I am only one of these.
Do you see a different in acceptances?
Do you see a different in acceptances?
i would defend your right to have your own magazine be what you want it to be, though, blake. i really think if a magazine’s stated goal is just “i’m publishing shit i like” then it’s implied that whatever your biases are, that’s getting published (now i personally think this is true of any magazine unless it is truly editorial by committee or something, but w/e)…anyway, if you’re upfront about this is my magazine, well, it isn’t the united nations. i guess it’s rougher if in fact you get lots of female submissions and dont publish hardly any. but if htmlgiant is a boys club and your theoretical magazine is a boys club, that would only be because of your personality, who you hang out with, your tastes, other factors, and certainly not necessarily indicative of like “blake is a sexist and he doesn’t even care that he is.” that being said, you are being awfully defensive and if i was your lawyer, i’d say it makes you “seem guilty,” even if you’re not. i know you don’t need me to say that, but still just trying to be helpful. blake works hard, yall. let’s not assume the worst about each other. we all get snarky on the internet, right?
i would defend your right to have your own magazine be what you want it to be, though, blake. i really think if a magazine’s stated goal is just “i’m publishing shit i like” then it’s implied that whatever your biases are, that’s getting published (now i personally think this is true of any magazine unless it is truly editorial by committee or something, but w/e)…anyway, if you’re upfront about this is my magazine, well, it isn’t the united nations. i guess it’s rougher if in fact you get lots of female submissions and dont publish hardly any. but if htmlgiant is a boys club and your theoretical magazine is a boys club, that would only be because of your personality, who you hang out with, your tastes, other factors, and certainly not necessarily indicative of like “blake is a sexist and he doesn’t even care that he is.” that being said, you are being awfully defensive and if i was your lawyer, i’d say it makes you “seem guilty,” even if you’re not. i know you don’t need me to say that, but still just trying to be helpful. blake works hard, yall. let’s not assume the worst about each other. we all get snarky on the internet, right?
My real name is Ann Bannister, but I write under the name of David Erlewine.
Darby, I thought you were a woman and were using a FB picture of your “man.”
that includes Ann Coulter, yes?
My real name is Ann Bannister, but I write under the name of David Erlewine.
Darby, I thought you were a woman and were using a FB picture of your “man.”
that includes Ann Coulter, yes?
Yup. Exactly.
And did saying so make you hurt or fall apart, Nate? Did the extra effort slice slivers from your soul?
I ask in all seriousness. Because acknowledging that bias exists, that we learn and practice it, aware or not (all genders do) seems to be painful in the extreme when one considers the lengths folks will go to to deny its existence. Some would like to remove “bias” from the OED, I suspect.
Yup. Exactly.
And did saying so make you hurt or fall apart, Nate? Did the extra effort slice slivers from your soul?
I ask in all seriousness. Because acknowledging that bias exists, that we learn and practice it, aware or not (all genders do) seems to be painful in the extreme when one considers the lengths folks will go to to deny its existence. Some would like to remove “bias” from the OED, I suspect.
some of it is just exposure and us sharing with each other different things… (this is not directed at blake)… like, dalkey archive introduced me to djuna barnes, well john o’brien told me to read it. that opened me up, before virginia woolf was my only female modernist writer (big into modernism). then tao lin raves about jean rhys, i read “good morning, midnight,” love jean rhys. if one is open and one shares, tastes will diversify or something, yes? not sure if that’s helpful, but yeah.
ugh
refers to the “infinitely interesting” part
some of it is just exposure and us sharing with each other different things… (this is not directed at blake)… like, dalkey archive introduced me to djuna barnes, well john o’brien told me to read it. that opened me up, before virginia woolf was my only female modernist writer (big into modernism). then tao lin raves about jean rhys, i read “good morning, midnight,” love jean rhys. if one is open and one shares, tastes will diversify or something, yes? not sure if that’s helpful, but yeah.
ugh
refers to the “infinitely interesting” part
JMWW has a firm policy. No women in the Spring, no men in the Fall. Otherwise, it’s all good.
letters in a last name are just as arbitrary as sex parts when it comes to language.
how many caramels did you eat last year?
how many pears have you seen?
JMWW has a firm policy. No women in the Spring, no men in the Fall. Otherwise, it’s all good.
letters in a last name are just as arbitrary as sex parts when it comes to language.
how many caramels did you eat last year?
how many pears have you seen?
and republicans would like to pretend we live in a “post-racial world,” because it’s convenient for them, allows them to continue to not care about poor people/minorities/injustice, or pretend issues don’t exist
i thought you were a woman! until that recent story of yours, got cleared up for me in the post.
and republicans would like to pretend we live in a “post-racial world,” because it’s convenient for them, allows them to continue to not care about poor people/minorities/injustice, or pretend issues don’t exist
i thought you were a woman! until that recent story of yours, got cleared up for me in the post.
Sorry I started this thread.
Shut up and write.
Sorry I started this thread.
Shut up and write.
So Blake, experience has nothing to do with what one writes? Only the muse saunters up from the void and fills our heads with words?
We live in a gendered world. People are raised and get treated accordingly. Writing, hopefully, can do something about that. But denial, why that’s just a river flowing from your pen.
So Blake, experience has nothing to do with what one writes? Only the muse saunters up from the void and fills our heads with words?
We live in a gendered world. People are raised and get treated accordingly. Writing, hopefully, can do something about that. But denial, why that’s just a river flowing from your pen.
“shut up and write”
isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
humans.
“lol”
saving the world one rarely read piece of writing at a time.
but why did you eat caramels last year? or why did you try not to eat them? why’d you notice the pears? what were you doing at the time? what were you wearing? what had you done or not done the night before? why? how do you feel, “who were you” doing those things? or what did other people make you think you were doing those things or not doing those things? you see where i’m going with this
finally, a space for the goats.
“shut up and write”
isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
humans.
“lol”
saving the world one rarely read piece of writing at a time.
but why did you eat caramels last year? or why did you try not to eat them? why’d you notice the pears? what were you doing at the time? what were you wearing? what had you done or not done the night before? why? how do you feel, “who were you” doing those things? or what did other people make you think you were doing those things or not doing those things? you see where i’m going with this
finally, a space for the goats.
no, it isn’t.
i guess maybe literature is less social for some ppl in the work itself too. consider for a second that your style is more word-concrete, words-as-painting than some other writers, yah?
no, it isn’t.
i guess maybe literature is less social for some ppl in the work itself too. consider for a second that your style is more word-concrete, words-as-painting than some other writers, yah?
your work seems to not be dependent on identity or character, necessarily, is that fair? but others is
I hear you. It might be a catch-22 though in our case, though. We can’t realy cultivate an air of inclusion until more writers of color start submitting, and writers of color won’t start submitting until they feel like they are being included.
“We live in a gendered world.”
I may have just barfed up my noodles.
your work seems to not be dependent on identity or character, necessarily, is that fair? but others is
I hear you. It might be a catch-22 though in our case, though. We can’t realy cultivate an air of inclusion until more writers of color start submitting, and writers of color won’t start submitting until they feel like they are being included.
“We live in a gendered world.”
I may have just barfed up my noodles.
being a woman or a man affects almost everything. how much you get paid, how likely you are to commit and/or be punished for a crime, how people respond to you in conversation and on the internet, the choices you make in life, including where/when/how/whether you write and where/when/how it gets published, etc. not just women, men too. race affects these things too. 99.9999% of decisions are not made on a blind basis. why ignore these facts?
Ann Coulter may be an awful human being but she is nothing if not interesting. I’d love to give her a shot of sodium pentathol and interview her, see what really makes that wacky brain of hers tick.
ha ha. html giant is so not about shutting up and writing. (aren’t we writing?)
being a woman or a man affects almost everything. how much you get paid, how likely you are to commit and/or be punished for a crime, how people respond to you in conversation and on the internet, the choices you make in life, including where/when/how/whether you write and where/when/how it gets published, etc. not just women, men too. race affects these things too. 99.9999% of decisions are not made on a blind basis. why ignore these facts?
Ann Coulter may be an awful human being but she is nothing if not interesting. I’d love to give her a shot of sodium pentathol and interview her, see what really makes that wacky brain of hers tick.
ha ha. html giant is so not about shutting up and writing. (aren’t we writing?)
I’m concerned by Blake’s flippancy, because it’s distracting and implies he’s more interested in saying “penis” and “vagina” than having a real dialogue, but I’m also concerned with Elisa’s logic, which doesn’t quite hold up.
Specifically: “If all an editor cares about is good writing, and the editor is not biased, they will naturally publish a diverse mix of authors.”
I would say that it is possible that “they will naturally publish a diverse mix of authors,” but also that that’s not necessarily the case, for a few reasons (at least). What an editor publishes is impacted by what is made available to them. If an editor only solicits work, and solicits an even number of woman and men, but doesn’t get work from everyone they solicit, they are at the mercy of what actually comes in. The editor is also restricted by time. Even if it’s their own web zine and so a deadline is arbitrary, once you’ve accepted work by authors, you are under pressure to publish those authors in a timely manner. Also, publishing regularly is better for readership. An editor’s time to devote to a search for authors is also a legitimate restriction.
An all-male issue is an extreme, but then again, we should consider context. How many authors are there in a given issue? Issue #3 of Absent featured nearly 30 authors; issue #4 only 12. If #4 had been all-male, it would be less strange than if issue #3 has been all-male. Also, a magazine’s context goes beyond the single issue. We can judge a magazine by a single issue, but if we’re looking for statistics, that’s a bad approach.
I was sorry about the WAC editor’s reply on French Exit–it makes him very hard to like–but liking him isn’t really relevant. One can understand why he’s upset: he put a lot of work into what looks to be a very good issue of a magazine, and for his work he’s a) been accused of sexism and b) his magazine is being “read” in a highly superficial way. He may also be angry on behalf of his authors, who are now being dismissed–unintentionally, of course, but nonetheless–as “all male.” They are more than that.
The word diverse is being misused here, too. If a magazine publishes all men, but there are men from Canada, there are Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese Americans, etc., etc., would we not say the magazine is diverse? I would.
I agree than editors should “at least consider/question their own gender biases”, or, as Becca put it, be aware, but an editor may decide that they are not sexist, even if they publish a single issue (or more) of all men, or racisist if they publish an issue of all whites, and they may not be. Elisa has–perhaps not intentionally–implied that the editor of WAC is sexist, which is different from biased. Of course he’s biased. He should be. He’s an editor. If he is not, his magazine will have no character.
Let me propose a solution Elisa is already onto: more women editors. More black editors. Not instead of, but as well.
And here’s another idea I’d like to see done ON PURPOSE: an all-male issue edited by a woman. What male authors do women find interesting/worth reading? Frankly, I can’t think of very many, but I’m biased…
Does it affect how you think?
I’m concerned by Blake’s flippancy, because it’s distracting and implies he’s more interested in saying “penis” and “vagina” than having a real dialogue, but I’m also concerned with Elisa’s logic, which doesn’t quite hold up.
Specifically: “If all an editor cares about is good writing, and the editor is not biased, they will naturally publish a diverse mix of authors.”
I would say that it is possible that “they will naturally publish a diverse mix of authors,” but also that that’s not necessarily the case, for a few reasons (at least). What an editor publishes is impacted by what is made available to them. If an editor only solicits work, and solicits an even number of woman and men, but doesn’t get work from everyone they solicit, they are at the mercy of what actually comes in. The editor is also restricted by time. Even if it’s their own web zine and so a deadline is arbitrary, once you’ve accepted work by authors, you are under pressure to publish those authors in a timely manner. Also, publishing regularly is better for readership. An editor’s time to devote to a search for authors is also a legitimate restriction.
An all-male issue is an extreme, but then again, we should consider context. How many authors are there in a given issue? Issue #3 of Absent featured nearly 30 authors; issue #4 only 12. If #4 had been all-male, it would be less strange than if issue #3 has been all-male. Also, a magazine’s context goes beyond the single issue. We can judge a magazine by a single issue, but if we’re looking for statistics, that’s a bad approach.
I was sorry about the WAC editor’s reply on French Exit–it makes him very hard to like–but liking him isn’t really relevant. One can understand why he’s upset: he put a lot of work into what looks to be a very good issue of a magazine, and for his work he’s a) been accused of sexism and b) his magazine is being “read” in a highly superficial way. He may also be angry on behalf of his authors, who are now being dismissed–unintentionally, of course, but nonetheless–as “all male.” They are more than that.
The word diverse is being misused here, too. If a magazine publishes all men, but there are men from Canada, there are Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese Americans, etc., etc., would we not say the magazine is diverse? I would.
I agree than editors should “at least consider/question their own gender biases”, or, as Becca put it, be aware, but an editor may decide that they are not sexist, even if they publish a single issue (or more) of all men, or racisist if they publish an issue of all whites, and they may not be. Elisa has–perhaps not intentionally–implied that the editor of WAC is sexist, which is different from biased. Of course he’s biased. He should be. He’s an editor. If he is not, his magazine will have no character.
Let me propose a solution Elisa is already onto: more women editors. More black editors. Not instead of, but as well.
And here’s another idea I’d like to see done ON PURPOSE: an all-male issue edited by a woman. What male authors do women find interesting/worth reading? Frankly, I can’t think of very many, but I’m biased…
Does it affect how you think?
Elisa – I have trouble understanding quotes around words I wouldn’t normally put quotes around (as an aside, I think this would be a great post on HTMLGiant, to explain this to me, the quotation marks around words thing. Maybe I’m old.) – are you saying “just saying” in a sarcastic way? Ironic? I hope I haven’t made you angry – that wasn’t my intent.
My point is this – how many of the authors that you’ve published are gay? Trans? How many are over the age of 70? I have no idea in the case of the journals that I’ve edited. We’re picking out one thing we think we can know – maybe your bios are more interesting than the ones I’ve read, but all I know from a bio is typically a name and a list of publication credits – I’m not suggesting it’s wrong to make a guess about gender based on a name, but that it’s only one thing. As for being able to identify the nationality of graduates of Iowa based on their names (or anybody’s nationality based on their name – I have an Scottish last name, but I’m from Pennsylvania!) – I honestly can’t imagine how you are able to do this.
The reason I suggest blind subs is that it removes any bias – name bias, gender bias from the initial reading of a submission.
Elisa – I have trouble understanding quotes around words I wouldn’t normally put quotes around (as an aside, I think this would be a great post on HTMLGiant, to explain this to me, the quotation marks around words thing. Maybe I’m old.) – are you saying “just saying” in a sarcastic way? Ironic? I hope I haven’t made you angry – that wasn’t my intent.
My point is this – how many of the authors that you’ve published are gay? Trans? How many are over the age of 70? I have no idea in the case of the journals that I’ve edited. We’re picking out one thing we think we can know – maybe your bios are more interesting than the ones I’ve read, but all I know from a bio is typically a name and a list of publication credits – I’m not suggesting it’s wrong to make a guess about gender based on a name, but that it’s only one thing. As for being able to identify the nationality of graduates of Iowa based on their names (or anybody’s nationality based on their name – I have an Scottish last name, but I’m from Pennsylvania!) – I honestly can’t imagine how you are able to do this.
The reason I suggest blind subs is that it removes any bias – name bias, gender bias from the initial reading of a submission.
Elisa aside, I gotta agree with Matt that the trend of randomly putting scare quotes around words for seemingly no reason really baffles me on here and in the indie lit world in general.
Elisa aside, I gotta agree with Matt that the trend of randomly putting scare quotes around words for seemingly no reason really baffles me on here and in the indie lit world in general.
does it affect language though? content aside, isnt gender arbitrary re language?
does it affect language though? content aside, isnt gender arbitrary re language?
Me too, Chris. She has said Jews like me are nearly perfected Christians, so I do have that going for me.
I’d want to make sure she was STRAPPED down before giving that shot of SP. I suspect she’s a fighter.
Me too, Chris. She has said Jews like me are nearly perfected Christians, so I do have that going for me.
I’d want to make sure she was STRAPPED down before giving that shot of SP. I suspect she’s a fighter.
We should object to mediocre work before we object to quotas of gender/race/etc. If you hand me a magazine that is wholly balding-midfifties-whiteguys-with-potbellies-and-predilections-for-huge-cigars, I won’t care if the magazine is full of authentically great work. In fact I’ll be delighted as piss.
Whereas the widespread applauding of shit is nothing more than babysitting.
I like this post.
We should object to mediocre work before we object to quotas of gender/race/etc. If you hand me a magazine that is wholly balding-midfifties-whiteguys-with-potbellies-and-predilections-for-huge-cigars, I won’t care if the magazine is full of authentically great work. In fact I’ll be delighted as piss.
Whereas the widespread applauding of shit is nothing more than babysitting.
I like this post.
might even be a hope-monger, or an optimism-monger, or shit, a positivity-monger, on occasion. horrible. you’re a consistent hater, so i guess we’re both reliable.
might even be a hope-monger, or an optimism-monger, or shit, a positivity-monger, on occasion. horrible. you’re a consistent hater, so i guess we’re both reliable.
but for some writers/readers/editors, you can’t put content aside, or perspective or what-have-you
but for some writers/readers/editors, you can’t put content aside, or perspective or what-have-you
this makes the most sense i’ve seen. thank you Susan.
true. neither can you separate content from language, is what elisa will say.
anyway.
i guess im always more concerned with how fast a pie is flying at my face more than i care about what kind of pie it is.
this makes the most sense i’ve seen. thank you Susan.
true. neither can you separate content from language, is what elisa will say.
anyway.
i guess im always more concerned with how fast a pie is flying at my face more than i care about what kind of pie it is.
i’m not trying to be flip, but i forget how tired these things get so quickly.
The quotes indicate that I’m aware “just saying” is an overused cliche, but it still basically applies in this situation. Advanced semiotics!
I think it’s a worthwhile goal to publish some gay authors, a range of ages, races, etc. But it’s also important to note that not 50% of writers are gay. Not 50% of writers are over 70. I do think 50% of writers are women. So it’s not crazy to think most journals should have a natural gender balance. If the way you achieve that is by reading submissions blind, cool. I’m all for it.
My point was, most Iowa graduates are white Americans. Do you really think all names around the world look/sound just like the names of white Americans?
i’m not trying to be flip, but i forget how tired these things get so quickly.
The quotes indicate that I’m aware “just saying” is an overused cliche, but it still basically applies in this situation. Advanced semiotics!
I think it’s a worthwhile goal to publish some gay authors, a range of ages, races, etc. But it’s also important to note that not 50% of writers are gay. Not 50% of writers are over 70. I do think 50% of writers are women. So it’s not crazy to think most journals should have a natural gender balance. If the way you achieve that is by reading submissions blind, cool. I’m all for it.
My point was, most Iowa graduates are white Americans. Do you really think all names around the world look/sound just like the names of white Americans?
50% of all people are women. Whether 50% of all the great unpublished work out there is written by women does not necessarily follow from that.
political discussions are always mistakes
50% of all people are women. Whether 50% of all the great unpublished work out there is written by women does not necessarily follow from that.
political discussions are always mistakes
I wasn’t going to comment at all, but here goes: quotas scare me. It’s a way of saying these groups of people would not be here (journal, university, bookstore, whatever), unless we designate special space for them. I understand why Affirmative Action was a good thing. I just have personal issues with it, unrelated to this blog post.
Gender shouldn’t be an issue. Good writing should be good writing. Good writing should be published. I’m not saying there aren’t underlying prejudices. I’m not saying there aren’t inherent privileges. This would be foolish. But a lot of the comments on this stream are out of control. Calm the fuck down people. Seriously.
Finally, I’d like a quick survey: When was the last time your story/poem/whatever was rejected because of your sex, race, class, or sexuality?
how could it not affect how you think? the world makes sure you know you’re a woman. of course that affects how you think. maybe if you grew up totally isolated from society, it would have very little effect. but living in a culture that treats genders differently has an effect.
I wasn’t going to comment at all, but here goes: quotas scare me. It’s a way of saying these groups of people would not be here (journal, university, bookstore, whatever), unless we designate special space for them. I understand why Affirmative Action was a good thing. I just have personal issues with it, unrelated to this blog post.
Gender shouldn’t be an issue. Good writing should be good writing. Good writing should be published. I’m not saying there aren’t underlying prejudices. I’m not saying there aren’t inherent privileges. This would be foolish. But a lot of the comments on this stream are out of control. Calm the fuck down people. Seriously.
Finally, I’d like a quick survey: When was the last time your story/poem/whatever was rejected because of your sex, race, class, or sexuality?
how could it not affect how you think? the world makes sure you know you’re a woman. of course that affects how you think. maybe if you grew up totally isolated from society, it would have very little effect. but living in a culture that treats genders differently has an effect.
i like plenty of things, i just don’t comment on them because they don’t need my support. i’m not a cheerleader. i’m just a dude in the crowd booing at bullshit flags.
i like plenty of things, i just don’t comment on them because they don’t need my support. i’m not a cheerleader. i’m just a dude in the crowd booing at bullshit flags.
No one is dismissing those authors. I’m questioning the editorial tactics and position, not the authors in any way.
“If a magazine publishes all men, but there are men from Canada, there are Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese Americans, etc., etc., would we not say the magazine is diverse? I would.”
it would be a half-truth. which is not the same as truth.
“Even if it’s their own web zine and so a deadline is arbitrary, once you’ve accepted work by authors, you are under pressure to publish those authors in a timely manner.”
this is a weak argument. why are you under pressure? what are the writers gonna do, beat you up? writers should be grateful for every scrap of attention they can get. they’re not in a position to exert pressure.
No one is dismissing those authors. I’m questioning the editorial tactics and position, not the authors in any way.
“If a magazine publishes all men, but there are men from Canada, there are Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese Americans, etc., etc., would we not say the magazine is diverse? I would.”
it would be a half-truth. which is not the same as truth.
“Even if it’s their own web zine and so a deadline is arbitrary, once you’ve accepted work by authors, you are under pressure to publish those authors in a timely manner.”
this is a weak argument. why are you under pressure? what are the writers gonna do, beat you up? writers should be grateful for every scrap of attention they can get. they’re not in a position to exert pressure.
Lily, I agree with everything you say but have to ask, about the last question posed, how a writer would know unless the editor is insane enough to “tell” the writer.
Lily, I agree with everything you say but have to ask, about the last question posed, how a writer would know unless the editor is insane enough to “tell” the writer.
i only care about children of men
well, to each his own. i’m cool with being a cheerleader.
quality flick
you think this comment thread is out of control? this has been incredibly civil considering the subject.
i have personal issues with AA also, in certain realms.
i only care about children of men
well, to each his own. i’m cool with being a cheerleader.
quality flick
you think this comment thread is out of control? this has been incredibly civil considering the subject.
i have personal issues with AA also, in certain realms.
they sure are, if you’re in a social position wherein you feel you have something to lose
The underlying assumption behind discussions like this is that, if you took a sample of say 100 writers, you would always find the same number of writers (say 2.5) who right now have truly top-notch work to submit.
Like it or not, imaginative genius is not distributed equally. It is subject to the accidents and whims of the individual soul. At any one time, all the top-notch unpublished work out there may be written by women, or by gays, or by people over 80. This says nothing about either group of people; it’s simply how the chips fell.
they sure are, if you’re in a social position wherein you feel you have something to lose
The underlying assumption behind discussions like this is that, if you took a sample of say 100 writers, you would always find the same number of writers (say 2.5) who right now have truly top-notch work to submit.
Like it or not, imaginative genius is not distributed equally. It is subject to the accidents and whims of the individual soul. At any one time, all the top-notch unpublished work out there may be written by women, or by gays, or by people over 80. This says nothing about either group of people; it’s simply how the chips fell.
“double lol”
“double lol”
i’m cool with AA
i’m cool with AA
not the editor would necessarily be aware of any biased reason behind their own decision
not the editor would necessarily be aware of any biased reason behind their own decision
Can you solicit writers of color for work?
You go get ’em, Mr. Cozart!
i guess that’s kind of my point. a lot of the comments here hint that certain groups of people are intentionally discriminated against. i don’t quite buy that. i’ve edited. more men submit than women. unless you keep a close eye on the gender balance, it’s bound to tip towards men. same goes for race, class, education, sexual orientation, religion, able-bodiedness, etc. shall i go on? (i used to teach gender studies. i can keep on, except my comments were worn out before i even wrote them. yawn. sorry.)
Can you solicit writers of color for work?
You go get ’em, Mr. Cozart!
i guess that’s kind of my point. a lot of the comments here hint that certain groups of people are intentionally discriminated against. i don’t quite buy that. i’ve edited. more men submit than women. unless you keep a close eye on the gender balance, it’s bound to tip towards men. same goes for race, class, education, sexual orientation, religion, able-bodiedness, etc. shall i go on? (i used to teach gender studies. i can keep on, except my comments were worn out before i even wrote them. yawn. sorry.)
i’m a “writer of color” and i’m often asked to contribute because of that. this makes me uncomfortable.
i’m a “writer of color” and i’m often asked to contribute because of that. this makes me uncomfortable.
OK, the quotes were totally lost on me. I don’t think they’re necessary because by saying what you said you’re already “just saying.” I admit this may be my problem. I would like to see this discussed further somewhere.
Yeah, I’m not really arguing with your point about gender balance. I agree that journals should have a natural gender balance. I’m arguing that the means most of us have for determining the gender of a writer is based on a name or a pronoun, which is flawed. I admit that you can probably accurately guess the gender of a writer many times based on a name, but that’s only (maybe) tells you one thing about a writer.
I don’t think you can accurately guess the nationality of a writer based on their name. You may be able to guess that somebody is of Irish decent, or Russian, or Indian, or Chinese, etc based on the origin of their last name, but I think they are just as likely to be American if you are editing a journal in America in English.
OK, the quotes were totally lost on me. I don’t think they’re necessary because by saying what you said you’re already “just saying.” I admit this may be my problem. I would like to see this discussed further somewhere.
Yeah, I’m not really arguing with your point about gender balance. I agree that journals should have a natural gender balance. I’m arguing that the means most of us have for determining the gender of a writer is based on a name or a pronoun, which is flawed. I admit that you can probably accurately guess the gender of a writer many times based on a name, but that’s only (maybe) tells you one thing about a writer.
I don’t think you can accurately guess the nationality of a writer based on their name. You may be able to guess that somebody is of Irish decent, or Russian, or Indian, or Chinese, etc based on the origin of their last name, but I think they are just as likely to be American if you are editing a journal in America in English.
At Emprise Review, the vast majority of fiction submissions are from men. So the majority of contributors in our next issue are male. I don’t do head counts or anything like that, but honestly, this does make me feel nervous, like people are going to come after me for mostly publishing dudes. The writing is the writing, so I publish what I like and screw gender. But I do feel bad about it. More chicks should send us their stuff.
At Emprise Review, the vast majority of fiction submissions are from men. So the majority of contributors in our next issue are male. I don’t do head counts or anything like that, but honestly, this does make me feel nervous, like people are going to come after me for mostly publishing dudes. The writing is the writing, so I publish what I like and screw gender. But I do feel bad about it. More chicks should send us their stuff.
Also, I would never publish all men or all women. Right or wrong–I would just worry way too much about the message that sends.
Also, I would never publish all men or all women. Right or wrong–I would just worry way too much about the message that sends.
Whether or not you intend to attack the authors, the constant dismissive of collections or magazine that publish “white men” or reading lists that are “dead white men” does bleed into the authors and almost seems to imply that being white or male is detrimental to writing good fiction, even if that is not the intent.
Whether or not you intend to attack the authors, the constant dismissive of collections or magazine that publish “white men” or reading lists that are “dead white men” does bleed into the authors and almost seems to imply that being white or male is detrimental to writing good fiction, even if that is not the intent.
“writers should be grateful for every scrap of attention they can get”?
Susan should have said GOOD editors. Good editors are under pressure because they don’t want to tie up an author’s work indefinately, because that’s obnoxious, and because the reputation of an editor who doesn’t publish in a reasonable amount of time may quickly go south. Her argument was not weak. Your self-esteem, however, appears to be.
“It would be a half-truth. Which is not the same as truth.”
You are truly a zen master, Mr. Cozart. Would you also say that if you shot a truth at a tree, that truth would have to travel half the distance, and then half that distance, and then half that distance, and would therefore never strike the tree?
Sounding clever is not the same as being clever, and being clever isn’t as interesting as offering a thoughtful response to a thoughtful comment (thanks, Susan).
Stop wasting our time, Mr. Cozart.
“writers should be grateful for every scrap of attention they can get”?
Susan should have said GOOD editors. Good editors are under pressure because they don’t want to tie up an author’s work indefinately, because that’s obnoxious, and because the reputation of an editor who doesn’t publish in a reasonable amount of time may quickly go south. Her argument was not weak. Your self-esteem, however, appears to be.
“It would be a half-truth. Which is not the same as truth.”
You are truly a zen master, Mr. Cozart. Would you also say that if you shot a truth at a tree, that truth would have to travel half the distance, and then half that distance, and then half that distance, and would therefore never strike the tree?
Sounding clever is not the same as being clever, and being clever isn’t as interesting as offering a thoughtful response to a thoughtful comment (thanks, Susan).
Stop wasting our time, Mr. Cozart.
what about the content, elisa? do you feel that none of the content can be read as feminist?
what about the content, elisa? do you feel that none of the content can be read as feminist?
If you don’t seek out any particular kind of work you’re mostly going to get subs from white males, it’s true. But it is possible to have a goal toward diversity and achieve it. For one, advertise your mag as being open to translations. no way all your writers will be white if you publish a lot of translations.
If you don’t seek out any particular kind of work you’re mostly going to get subs from white males, it’s true. But it is possible to have a goal toward diversity and achieve it. For one, advertise your mag as being open to translations. no way all your writers will be white if you publish a lot of translations.
Hmm? I’m unsure why you think it is a weak argument? You don’t think that magazines should put out issues in a timely manner for the benefit of both writers and readers?
I think Susan’s point is a fair one.
What is the half-truth in the first quote? That race is not really diversity?
I do wonder if things are different in fiction and in poetry. Maybe the balance of contributors is not so crazy tilted? I definitely think the quality of the work I’m receiving from women and men is the same. But the numbers are so skewed it’s really crazy. I was shocked when I noticed.
Hmm? I’m unsure why you think it is a weak argument? You don’t think that magazines should put out issues in a timely manner for the benefit of both writers and readers?
I think Susan’s point is a fair one.
What is the half-truth in the first quote? That race is not really diversity?
I do wonder if things are different in fiction and in poetry. Maybe the balance of contributors is not so crazy tilted? I definitely think the quality of the work I’m receiving from women and men is the same. But the numbers are so skewed it’s really crazy. I was shocked when I noticed.
Similarly, the constant suggestion that publishing women is the equivalent of “meeting a quota” or only caring about genitals bleeds into the authors and suggests that being a woman is detrimental to writing good ___________
Yeah, I’m not really into that. I’d rather have someone submit because they like and read our publication and want to be a part of it. Or they see it as a venue that’s representational of, and apporpriate for, their story. Soliciting someone based on their race feels too political and that’s not what we’re about.
Similarly, the constant suggestion that publishing women is the equivalent of “meeting a quota” or only caring about genitals bleeds into the authors and suggests that being a woman is detrimental to writing good ___________
Yeah, I’m not really into that. I’d rather have someone submit because they like and read our publication and want to be a part of it. Or they see it as a venue that’s representational of, and apporpriate for, their story. Soliciting someone based on their race feels too political and that’s not what we’re about.
Also, I have championed at least two of the authors in question (Mike Young and Mark Leidner). I do not fault them for simply being white men and I like their work.
I asked how, not what.
Also, I have championed at least two of the authors in question (Mike Young and Mark Leidner). I do not fault them for simply being white men and I like their work.
I asked how, not what.
re: we are champion in particular, if that wasn’t clear
re: we are champion in particular, if that wasn’t clear
I am still in one piece, soul included.
I’m convinced, as you are Amy, and Elisa has said, that bias exists and shades us, and I want to do all I can to negate it, even though it may not completely disappear.
Ha, I suspected I was helping make your point. They don’t call me Larry Literal for nothing.
Actually, I read a lot of the comments above as expressing concern that this discrimination might be UNintentional–a result of unexamined bias. After all, these coincidences so rarely occur in the other direction. A magazine never “coincidentally” publishes all women or all writers of color; when something like this happens, it’s generally to the good of men. One editor who “tends to prefer” the work of men is not necessarily sexist, of course, but a thousand editors who “tend to prefer” the work of men create a sexist climate, whether they mean to or not.
Institutional bias is built from individual bias, and that’s why these individual situations–even the smallest and most trivial-seeming–are worthy of attention.
I am still in one piece, soul included.
I’m convinced, as you are Amy, and Elisa has said, that bias exists and shades us, and I want to do all I can to negate it, even though it may not completely disappear.
Ha, I suspected I was helping make your point. They don’t call me Larry Literal for nothing.
Actually, I read a lot of the comments above as expressing concern that this discrimination might be UNintentional–a result of unexamined bias. After all, these coincidences so rarely occur in the other direction. A magazine never “coincidentally” publishes all women or all writers of color; when something like this happens, it’s generally to the good of men. One editor who “tends to prefer” the work of men is not necessarily sexist, of course, but a thousand editors who “tend to prefer” the work of men create a sexist climate, whether they mean to or not.
Institutional bias is built from individual bias, and that’s why these individual situations–even the smallest and most trivial-seeming–are worthy of attention.
Nothing about the table of contents or the editorial statement suggested that I would find feminist work inside, and I didn’t go looking for it. Did you have a particular piece in mind?
Nothing about the table of contents or the editorial statement suggested that I would find feminist work inside, and I didn’t go looking for it. Did you have a particular piece in mind?
no, you answered my question
no, you answered my question
yes. i agree it was a highly ass-holish response but again, i commented in, as you stated, as superficial a way as i thought my magazine was being read. it wasn’t even that elisa was asking the question: “why does this magazine have so many male contributors” but rather: “this is something i DON’T LIKE” based on not having female contributors.
funny thing was just that morning, before the issue went up, i was talking to my friend, ezra, and telling him that it was weird that we didn’t have any female contributors this go-round but unfortunately, however arbitrary, i’d posted the timeline for issues and would feel that it would be doing a disservice to the writers and readers to mess with those timelines. no, matt cozart, writers shouldn’t be treated like you’re doing them a favor. if anything they’re doing you just as much of a favor and so, even if the deadlines are arbitrary, i’d already long established them and owed it to writers and readers to get the work done on time. c’mon. you’re acting like you’ve never heard of a deadline.
i try to keep my contributors to less than ten an issue. i know a lot of online lit mags bombard you with contributors and i always felt that was a bit overwhelming so i try to keep it small. were most of the subs men, yes. i feel like i shouldn’t even have to justify shit but here goes: knowing this did i try to solicit more women? yes. i solicited maybe 4-5 male writers and out of that group, although many told me they’d be happy to submit, i only got two pieces. it was mostly due to bad timing. i solicited eleven different female writers and out of that group only received poems from one incredible writer. again a lot of it was bad timing. maybe it was a bad time of the year because of academia, who knows? i received incredible poems from a “monster” of a poet (yes monsters, strength and power can definitely apply to women, jesus) but i’d received them so late into the process (i had one spot to fill) that i really felt like her poems, as amazing as they were, didn’t necessarily fit into aesthetic of that particular issue.
look, fair or unfair, i have a particular aesthetic in mind but it all starts to take shape based on the first handful of contributors. jimmy’s and mike’s were the first pieces i received. i loved the barthelmean humor behind jimmy’s. which then led into chris’ almost raunchier barthelmean dialogue pieces. then mike’s powerful odes to love, then really incredible short poems by ben mirov and goosey and chris and then leidner’s longer, boundary pushing piece. and before that, the longer beast by miguel morales. and the tempo to reynard’s story just perfectly capped things. i really try to think of it as a whole and how all the disparate stories and poems fit together. i got some incredible stories and poems from writers that were perfectly crafted but just didn’t fit the mold.
i respect magazine’s that have that ‘everything and the kitchen sink’ mentality, but that isn’t mine. not in regards to this particular magazine. i know the aesthetic is narrow. it already cuts our submissions. i do agree w/ elisa in that it sets a bad precedent, but also, give me the benefit that it’s only the second issue and it obviously takes any magazine a few issues just to get a wider audience, wider swath of submitters, etc. but i also disagree and think it’s weird that, as elisa stated, a woman would see that there were no women in a particular issue and that would prevent her from submitting. or at least i’d hope that wouldn’t be the case. i mean, shit, i never see asian names so i might as well call it quits. that’s a weird defeatist stance i’ll never understand. again, i think she was talking hypotheticals and so am i.
i really don’t care whether or not you believe i have a gender bias. again, what irked me was that elisa was basically dismissing the magazine (THINGS I DON’T LIKE) based on numbers. read it and hate it, fine. glance at some names and dismiss it, i have a problem with. and the issue of bios is moot. at least for me. i barely even read over ’em after i’ve accepted and only to make sure i’m getting the right things italicized. chris okum’s only reads: chris okum is from los angeles.
yes. i agree it was a highly ass-holish response but again, i commented in, as you stated, as superficial a way as i thought my magazine was being read. it wasn’t even that elisa was asking the question: “why does this magazine have so many male contributors” but rather: “this is something i DON’T LIKE” based on not having female contributors.
funny thing was just that morning, before the issue went up, i was talking to my friend, ezra, and telling him that it was weird that we didn’t have any female contributors this go-round but unfortunately, however arbitrary, i’d posted the timeline for issues and would feel that it would be doing a disservice to the writers and readers to mess with those timelines. no, matt cozart, writers shouldn’t be treated like you’re doing them a favor. if anything they’re doing you just as much of a favor and so, even if the deadlines are arbitrary, i’d already long established them and owed it to writers and readers to get the work done on time. c’mon. you’re acting like you’ve never heard of a deadline.
i try to keep my contributors to less than ten an issue. i know a lot of online lit mags bombard you with contributors and i always felt that was a bit overwhelming so i try to keep it small. were most of the subs men, yes. i feel like i shouldn’t even have to justify shit but here goes: knowing this did i try to solicit more women? yes. i solicited maybe 4-5 male writers and out of that group, although many told me they’d be happy to submit, i only got two pieces. it was mostly due to bad timing. i solicited eleven different female writers and out of that group only received poems from one incredible writer. again a lot of it was bad timing. maybe it was a bad time of the year because of academia, who knows? i received incredible poems from a “monster” of a poet (yes monsters, strength and power can definitely apply to women, jesus) but i’d received them so late into the process (i had one spot to fill) that i really felt like her poems, as amazing as they were, didn’t necessarily fit into aesthetic of that particular issue.
look, fair or unfair, i have a particular aesthetic in mind but it all starts to take shape based on the first handful of contributors. jimmy’s and mike’s were the first pieces i received. i loved the barthelmean humor behind jimmy’s. which then led into chris’ almost raunchier barthelmean dialogue pieces. then mike’s powerful odes to love, then really incredible short poems by ben mirov and goosey and chris and then leidner’s longer, boundary pushing piece. and before that, the longer beast by miguel morales. and the tempo to reynard’s story just perfectly capped things. i really try to think of it as a whole and how all the disparate stories and poems fit together. i got some incredible stories and poems from writers that were perfectly crafted but just didn’t fit the mold.
i respect magazine’s that have that ‘everything and the kitchen sink’ mentality, but that isn’t mine. not in regards to this particular magazine. i know the aesthetic is narrow. it already cuts our submissions. i do agree w/ elisa in that it sets a bad precedent, but also, give me the benefit that it’s only the second issue and it obviously takes any magazine a few issues just to get a wider audience, wider swath of submitters, etc. but i also disagree and think it’s weird that, as elisa stated, a woman would see that there were no women in a particular issue and that would prevent her from submitting. or at least i’d hope that wouldn’t be the case. i mean, shit, i never see asian names so i might as well call it quits. that’s a weird defeatist stance i’ll never understand. again, i think she was talking hypotheticals and so am i.
i really don’t care whether or not you believe i have a gender bias. again, what irked me was that elisa was basically dismissing the magazine (THINGS I DON’T LIKE) based on numbers. read it and hate it, fine. glance at some names and dismiss it, i have a problem with. and the issue of bios is moot. at least for me. i barely even read over ’em after i’ve accepted and only to make sure i’m getting the right things italicized. chris okum’s only reads: chris okum is from los angeles.
Susan tells it like it is.
Susan tells it like it is.
“writers should be grateful for every scrap of attention they can get. they’re not in a position to exert pressure.”
yeah, journals would be great without writers submitting stories. so, indeed, writers have no bargaining power.
hope that thing on your leg is healing.
“writers should be grateful for every scrap of attention they can get. they’re not in a position to exert pressure.”
yeah, journals would be great without writers submitting stories. so, indeed, writers have no bargaining power.
hope that thing on your leg is healing.
sorry, i shouldn’t be so dismissive but it’s so hard! especially since i’m in the damn thing, i feel weird discussing it. but the reason i said that is: i don’t get the feeling, from your comments and blog post, that you care about the representation of feminine issues in the content. rather, you only seem to care about the representation of femininity in the superficial (as gene just said below). there are plenty of pieces in this issue that would be ripe, i think, for a feminist reading – albeit, with a sensitivity for satire. i just feel icky about naming them off and i actually have no interest in seeing it done.
sorry, i shouldn’t be so dismissive but it’s so hard! especially since i’m in the damn thing, i feel weird discussing it. but the reason i said that is: i don’t get the feeling, from your comments and blog post, that you care about the representation of feminine issues in the content. rather, you only seem to care about the representation of femininity in the superficial (as gene just said below). there are plenty of pieces in this issue that would be ripe, i think, for a feminist reading – albeit, with a sensitivity for satire. i just feel icky about naming them off and i actually have no interest in seeing it done.
The problem with publishing all men, apart from limiting your future submissions from women, is that you also limit your female *readership*. I didn’t feel invited to read your magazine. HTML Giant posts links to new issues of online magazines every week. I don’t have time to read them all. I read the ones that seem to be offering an interesting vision or mix of content. Again, this is really nothing against the authors — for example I see new issues of magazines where Mike Young is listed as a contributor all the time. So I don’t need to read WAC in order to see what MY is up to.
Do you see what I am saying?
I do appreciate this longer comment and I wish you’d left it at my blog. It’s good to know that you thought about it and didn’t just look at my profile picture and say “fuck off.” Also, I never said I didn’t “like” your magazine. I said I wasn’t “into” the all-male thing — small distinction but important.
The problem with publishing all men, apart from limiting your future submissions from women, is that you also limit your female *readership*. I didn’t feel invited to read your magazine. HTML Giant posts links to new issues of online magazines every week. I don’t have time to read them all. I read the ones that seem to be offering an interesting vision or mix of content. Again, this is really nothing against the authors — for example I see new issues of magazines where Mike Young is listed as a contributor all the time. So I don’t need to read WAC in order to see what MY is up to.
Do you see what I am saying?
I do appreciate this longer comment and I wish you’d left it at my blog. It’s good to know that you thought about it and didn’t just look at my profile picture and say “fuck off.” Also, I never said I didn’t “like” your magazine. I said I wasn’t “into” the all-male thing — small distinction but important.
Hey Reynard,
As I posted below in response to Gene, I think publishing only men sends a message to potential female READERS, not just potential submitters. In that way, I think any editor is doing his/her contributors a disservice by sending such a message. I didn’t read the issue because I don’t have time to read every new journal I hear about. I make time for the ones that seem to have an interesting/compelling editorial project. This is why I think authors should carefully consider where they send/publish their work. The venue matters — it affects who reads it and how they read it.
Don’t you think?
Hey Reynard,
As I posted below in response to Gene, I think publishing only men sends a message to potential female READERS, not just potential submitters. In that way, I think any editor is doing his/her contributors a disservice by sending such a message. I didn’t read the issue because I don’t have time to read every new journal I hear about. I make time for the ones that seem to have an interesting/compelling editorial project. This is why I think authors should carefully consider where they send/publish their work. The venue matters — it affects who reads it and how they read it.
Don’t you think?
guys, mike young is totally the same as a chick.
chill out.
guys, mike young is totally the same as a chick.
chill out.
all women think like this? that a predominantly male-contributed-to journal is not inviting to read based only that fact?
all women think like this? that a predominantly male-contributed-to journal is not inviting to read based only that fact?
change ‘all’ to ‘a majority’
change ‘all’ to ‘a majority’
I will admit to peeking at contributor’s private parts, but for the best possible reasons.
I will admit to peeking at contributor’s private parts, but for the best possible reasons.
Regarding your survey, I once rejected a book because it wasn’t written by a woman. Then the writer emailed me to say, basically, that I was stupid, so I published it.
i agree that the venue matters. but personally, i’m much more interested in the aesthetics of the graphic design and content than i could ever care about the sexual-orientation of the contributors, but that’s just me. you said nothing in your blog post about female readers, but female submissions. what i don’t understand is, if you feel that there is a disparity here, why not try to rectify that yourself by encouraging women to submit, rather than vaguely bitching about a perceived sexist trend or force at work? frankly, i think gene would love it if he were suddenly inundated with female submissions.
Regarding your survey, I once rejected a book because it wasn’t written by a woman. Then the writer emailed me to say, basically, that I was stupid, so I published it.
i agree that the venue matters. but personally, i’m much more interested in the aesthetics of the graphic design and content than i could ever care about the sexual-orientation of the contributors, but that’s just me. you said nothing in your blog post about female readers, but female submissions. what i don’t understand is, if you feel that there is a disparity here, why not try to rectify that yourself by encouraging women to submit, rather than vaguely bitching about a perceived sexist trend or force at work? frankly, i think gene would love it if he were suddenly inundated with female submissions.
i don’t know why i said sexual orientation or why i hyphenated it. i’ve had way too much coffee today.
what is “race-heavy”?
i don’t know why i said sexual orientation or why i hyphenated it. i’ve had way too much coffee today.
what is “race-heavy”?
Note: Body parts determine *biological sex*. The *cultural perception* of how one lives in relation to those body parts is what determines *gender*.
But, dudes: when you say you’re just trying to put out the best product you can, or you’re just publishing the best writing you can find, or whatever pseudo-objectivity-slumming art-made-me-do-it defense you’re using, you are announcing VERY LOUDLY the limits of your vision/taste/aesthetic/editorial capacity/sweet sweet love/etc. VERY LOUDLY.
You’re totes free to publish any and everything you want, and everyone’s totes free to criticize it.
I hear Lily on the weirdness of being asked to submit simply because you’re inscribed by a useful marker of identity. That seems like a subpar editorial technique. But, for instance, when I teach a class, I choose texts from a bevy of authorial subject positions and the only thing hard about that is NARROWING IT DOWN. Cripe’s sake, there is SO MUCH! SO MUCH! AMAZING WORK OUT THERE COMING FROM ANY TYPE OF BODY/HUMAN/SUBJECT you can imagine. It’s an embarrassment of <3 <3 $$$$$mmmmmm riches. Try liking more stuff!
Of course, I can't tell the difference between language and bodies.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Note: Body parts determine *biological sex*. The *cultural perception* of how one lives in relation to those body parts is what determines *gender*.
But, dudes: when you say you’re just trying to put out the best product you can, or you’re just publishing the best writing you can find, or whatever pseudo-objectivity-slumming art-made-me-do-it defense you’re using, you are announcing VERY LOUDLY the limits of your vision/taste/aesthetic/editorial capacity/sweet sweet love/etc. VERY LOUDLY.
You’re totes free to publish any and everything you want, and everyone’s totes free to criticize it.
I hear Lily on the weirdness of being asked to submit simply because you’re inscribed by a useful marker of identity. That seems like a subpar editorial technique. But, for instance, when I teach a class, I choose texts from a bevy of authorial subject positions and the only thing hard about that is NARROWING IT DOWN. Cripe’s sake, there is SO MUCH! SO MUCH! AMAZING WORK OUT THERE COMING FROM ANY TYPE OF BODY/HUMAN/SUBJECT you can imagine. It’s an embarrassment of <3 <3 $$$$$mmmmmm riches. Try liking more stuff!
Of course, I can't tell the difference between language and bodies.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Wait, aren’t you on the board of WILLA (Women in Letters & Literary Arts)? Talk about announcing VERY LOUDLY the limits of your vision/etc.
Wait, aren’t you on the board of WILLA (Women in Letters & Literary Arts)? Talk about announcing VERY LOUDLY the limits of your vision/etc.
Yep, I’m on the board of WILLA. Why is that limited?
There are some really interesting points being made in this thread. As an editor, I don’t read thinking about gender or other diversities. I read for work that fits our aesthetic. As I assemble issues, I absolutely do try to find a balance, particularly where gender is concerned. I think a collection writing borne from diverse writers makes for a more interesting magazine. It is not about quotas or political correction but rather, it is about acknowledging that there is a wide range of experiences in the world and I am personally invested in doing what I can to giving access to as many of those experiences, and styles of writing, as I can. There are some diversities that are very hard to come by. Finding writers of color to submit feels near impossible. I’m pretty sure we’ve published no more than 10 writers of color ever and yes, that troubles me. It troubles me greatly because I know that is not an accurate representation of the writing community. I think it should trouble everyone, I really do. I’m an editor who is Haitian and a woman but that does not magically invite submissions from women or people of color. We don’t do much soliciting so we have to hope that we are creating a magazine where everyone feels welcome. Up to 80% of our submissions are from men but somehow that doesn’t result in heavily male-skewed issues. I don’t know why.
I don’t think it is wrong to voice concerns about an all-male or all-anything issue of a given magazine. Pointing out that kind of imbalance does not detract from the writers who are included. Discussing these imbalances is bringing attention to what is absent, not what is present.
Yep, I’m on the board of WILLA. Why is that limited?
There are some really interesting points being made in this thread. As an editor, I don’t read thinking about gender or other diversities. I read for work that fits our aesthetic. As I assemble issues, I absolutely do try to find a balance, particularly where gender is concerned. I think a collection writing borne from diverse writers makes for a more interesting magazine. It is not about quotas or political correction but rather, it is about acknowledging that there is a wide range of experiences in the world and I am personally invested in doing what I can to giving access to as many of those experiences, and styles of writing, as I can. There are some diversities that are very hard to come by. Finding writers of color to submit feels near impossible. I’m pretty sure we’ve published no more than 10 writers of color ever and yes, that troubles me. It troubles me greatly because I know that is not an accurate representation of the writing community. I think it should trouble everyone, I really do. I’m an editor who is Haitian and a woman but that does not magically invite submissions from women or people of color. We don’t do much soliciting so we have to hope that we are creating a magazine where everyone feels welcome. Up to 80% of our submissions are from men but somehow that doesn’t result in heavily male-skewed issues. I don’t know why.
I don’t think it is wrong to voice concerns about an all-male or all-anything issue of a given magazine. Pointing out that kind of imbalance does not detract from the writers who are included. Discussing these imbalances is bringing attention to what is absent, not what is present.
Point me to this embarrassment of amazing work. I’m betting it’s an embarrassment of decidedly average (or worse) work.
Point me to this embarrassment of amazing work. I’m betting it’s an embarrassment of decidedly average (or worse) work.
Yep, I’m on the board of WILLA. Why is that limited?
Yep, I’m on the board of WILLA. Why is that limited?
I’d like to reframe the discussion and make it a little bigger–not just journal publishing.
I have applied for limited amount of state run grants to support a poetry festival I oversee. Every single one wants to know who is the population that is served; what are the racial, ethnic, and gender breakdowns of the artists; and how will the targeted community be served by the event’s proposed artists.
So, I literally have to go through artists I know, sort of know, don’t know, and then choose with these mitigating factors in mind. Do I think it compromises the event? I do not. In fact, I’d venture to say that I’m working against my natural biases, and being forced to take writers I would not otherwise take–much to my benefit in the longrun: I’m forced to see what is going on in poetic communities I don’t naturally gravitate toward, and by doing this, I’m getting a better range of writer. So even though I may have to use quotas to get a grant, I wind up having a lot of different but cool writers I would not otherwise be able to engage with.
And then I have to think about my audience–and the grants often want underserved populations–what are they looking for? Often, if not forced, I’d just keep it in my comfort zone–but I can’t with these grants. I am forced to branch out.
Now, for a journal–that kind of aesthetic range might make it seem indistinct and boring. I don’t know. I don’t edit a journal and don’t plan to. And I realize that journal editing is an entirely different process than putting together a reading series. But I like to think that there are enough good writers that even if some kind of quota system is in place, it doesn’t mean mediocrity and compromise of aesthetic integrity.
I’d like to hear you explain how trying to publish good work is an aesthetic limitation.
Oh and, “pseudo-objective”? If you’re going to denigrate the validity of others’ value judgments, then I suggest you refrain from making your own.
I’d like to reframe the discussion and make it a little bigger–not just journal publishing.
I have applied for limited amount of state run grants to support a poetry festival I oversee. Every single one wants to know who is the population that is served; what are the racial, ethnic, and gender breakdowns of the artists; and how will the targeted community be served by the event’s proposed artists.
So, I literally have to go through artists I know, sort of know, don’t know, and then choose with these mitigating factors in mind. Do I think it compromises the event? I do not. In fact, I’d venture to say that I’m working against my natural biases, and being forced to take writers I would not otherwise take–much to my benefit in the longrun: I’m forced to see what is going on in poetic communities I don’t naturally gravitate toward, and by doing this, I’m getting a better range of writer. So even though I may have to use quotas to get a grant, I wind up having a lot of different but cool writers I would not otherwise be able to engage with.
And then I have to think about my audience–and the grants often want underserved populations–what are they looking for? Often, if not forced, I’d just keep it in my comfort zone–but I can’t with these grants. I am forced to branch out.
Now, for a journal–that kind of aesthetic range might make it seem indistinct and boring. I don’t know. I don’t edit a journal and don’t plan to. And I realize that journal editing is an entirely different process than putting together a reading series. But I like to think that there are enough good writers that even if some kind of quota system is in place, it doesn’t mean mediocrity and compromise of aesthetic integrity.
I’d like to hear you explain how trying to publish good work is an aesthetic limitation.
Oh and, “pseudo-objective”? If you’re going to denigrate the validity of others’ value judgments, then I suggest you refrain from making your own.
You work for a group that narrowly focuses entirely on one gender and then typing lazy insults at people whose journals slightly tilt towards another gender. Lol.
You work for a group that narrowly focuses entirely on one gender and then typing lazy insults at people whose journals slightly tilt towards another gender. Lol.
If Gene would love it, he could just say so in his submission guidelines. If I’m going to spend time telling women to submit their work, it’s going to be to my own magazine, not something I just heard of yesterday.
If Gene would love it, he could just say so in his submission guidelines. If I’m going to spend time telling women to submit their work, it’s going to be to my own magazine, not something I just heard of yesterday.
You could start here: http://www.spdbooks.org/pages/events/SPD_Poetry_Month_Special.aspx
You could start here: http://www.spdbooks.org/pages/events/SPD_Poetry_Month_Special.aspx
Every single on of those constitutes “amazing work”?
Every single on of those constitutes “amazing work”?
Um, why? Why shouldn’t I critique other editorial practices? Why shouldn’t I assert what I believe to be a better model? That’s the point of this convo.
And, to Irony Patrol, you seem ill-informed about WILLA, though indeed it is an organization for women writers. More information can be found at http://www.willaweb.org
I’m not sure I follow your sentence, but I work for this group and then I lazy typing insults? Maybe. Or maybe I’m lazy typing a valid critique, or maybe I’m just too much coffee and a big-mouthed girlady. But you seem to be suggesting some sort of reverse sexism, as though the creation of an all women organization would take place in a vacuum, rather than in a culture rife with gender disparity. LOL.
Um, why? Why shouldn’t I critique other editorial practices? Why shouldn’t I assert what I believe to be a better model? That’s the point of this convo.
And, to Irony Patrol, you seem ill-informed about WILLA, though indeed it is an organization for women writers. More information can be found at http://www.willaweb.org
I’m not sure I follow your sentence, but I work for this group and then I lazy typing insults? Maybe. Or maybe I’m lazy typing a valid critique, or maybe I’m just too much coffee and a big-mouthed girlady. But you seem to be suggesting some sort of reverse sexism, as though the creation of an all women organization would take place in a vacuum, rather than in a culture rife with gender disparity. LOL.
The difference is that for a panel you are “soliciting” the writers who will speak and thus can organize it from the best of the whole writing world. well, the beset who will agree to attend.
Running a journal, you are normally at the mercy of what writers will submit to you if you aren’t the New Yorker or something. So if you get 80% male submissions, to use Roxanne’s figure, it is much harder to make an issue that is 50% great work by females.
The difference is that for a panel you are “soliciting” the writers who will speak and thus can organize it from the best of the whole writing world. well, the beset who will agree to attend.
Running a journal, you are normally at the mercy of what writers will submit to you if you aren’t the New Yorker or something. So if you get 80% male submissions, to use Roxanne’s figure, it is much harder to make an issue that is 50% great work by females.
now you’re just being obtuse. sorry to take this out of context but – in regards to your tweet a few minutes ago, ‘I want to redo that “Someone is wrong on the Internet” cartoon so it says “Someone is sexist on the Internet”‘ – your reluctance to read a journal with all male contributors seems more sexist than anything i’ve read on this thread. if i were to say, ‘i don’t read we are women because it’s all women so i’m sure it’s going to be a bunch of stories and poems about menopause and flowers so i’m not even going to bother because i don’t have the time and i don’t care so i’d rather spend a bunch of time bitching about how sexist this all-female magazine is’ i’m pretty sure people would accuse me of sexism. so here we are. i was simply making a suggestion to turn your negativity into something positive that might actually have an affect on the number of women published in a journal in which you feel there are not enough women represented, but you don’t really care.
now you’re just being obtuse. sorry to take this out of context but – in regards to your tweet a few minutes ago, ‘I want to redo that “Someone is wrong on the Internet” cartoon so it says “Someone is sexist on the Internet”‘ – your reluctance to read a journal with all male contributors seems more sexist than anything i’ve read on this thread. if i were to say, ‘i don’t read we are women because it’s all women so i’m sure it’s going to be a bunch of stories and poems about menopause and flowers so i’m not even going to bother because i don’t have the time and i don’t care so i’d rather spend a bunch of time bitching about how sexist this all-female magazine is’ i’m pretty sure people would accuse me of sexism. so here we are. i was simply making a suggestion to turn your negativity into something positive that might actually have an affect on the number of women published in a journal in which you feel there are not enough women represented, but you don’t really care.
My take is this: when I see a magazine or many magazines who publish much more work from male-identified authors than female-identified authors, I assume that it is because it is the best work out there to be had. I assume the editors looked at everything they could get their hands on and chose what they thought was best. If that means more male-identified writers than the other, so be it.
And if that pattern occurs in aggregate and over years, than the only logical assumption I can make–giving everyone the benefit of the doubt–is that there is more good writing out there done by men, or–alternately–that women are not trying hard enough to put their work out there. And if that pattern continues over decades, then it becomes clear that women simply aren’t as ambitious, as talented, and/or as committed to writing as men are.
Now, of course, there may be specific breaks to this pattern. Exceptions that, as they say, prove the rule: Dickinson, Bishop perhaps. But, it’s actually very simple, isn’t it? Magazine editors are out there to put out the best product they can–and what does culture or content or modes of existing in the actual world have to do with good language?
Nothing.
And the minute we attempt to tie the judgment of literature to something like a body or to a political consideration like gender or race or any of the isms, is the minute we lose the possibility to transcend the body and produce truly great work… true reflections of what is best in humanity… the universal… the sublime. I for one do not wish to lower my standards.
I tell you, this whole discussion is making me fear for my sons… what kind of an uphill battle they may face if they should choose to excel as poets. It’s truly disturbing. The kind of wrath they may face if and when they choose simply to become great–the jealousy, the complaints of mediocre women writers who envy them.
I’m sick about it, I tell you. Sick.
Kirsten Kaschock
My take is this: when I see a magazine or many magazines who publish much more work from male-identified authors than female-identified authors, I assume that it is because it is the best work out there to be had. I assume the editors looked at everything they could get their hands on and chose what they thought was best. If that means more male-identified writers than the other, so be it.
And if that pattern occurs in aggregate and over years, than the only logical assumption I can make–giving everyone the benefit of the doubt–is that there is more good writing out there done by men, or–alternately–that women are not trying hard enough to put their work out there. And if that pattern continues over decades, then it becomes clear that women simply aren’t as ambitious, as talented, and/or as committed to writing as men are.
Now, of course, there may be specific breaks to this pattern. Exceptions that, as they say, prove the rule: Dickinson, Bishop perhaps. But, it’s actually very simple, isn’t it? Magazine editors are out there to put out the best product they can–and what does culture or content or modes of existing in the actual world have to do with good language?
Nothing.
And the minute we attempt to tie the judgment of literature to something like a body or to a political consideration like gender or race or any of the isms, is the minute we lose the possibility to transcend the body and produce truly great work… true reflections of what is best in humanity… the universal… the sublime. I for one do not wish to lower my standards.
I tell you, this whole discussion is making me fear for my sons… what kind of an uphill battle they may face if they should choose to excel as poets. It’s truly disturbing. The kind of wrath they may face if and when they choose simply to become great–the jealousy, the complaints of mediocre women writers who envy them.
I’m sick about it, I tell you. Sick.
Kirsten Kaschock
Absolutely, D. Soliciting for a panel is much easier. Also, grantmakers always ask which diverse populations are being served, from the federal to the local level. There’s a reason for that. It is an open acknowledgment that diversity matters and that to get money, you’re going to have to make yourself care.
Also, it is hard to achieve balance in a magazine. Also, I don’t know that it needs to be 50%, but some kind of diverse representation I feel is important. We, as Blake says, all human and I understand where he is coming from when he says that but we are not all the same and I think that not only does difference matter, difference can be enriching. Too often, people shy away from difference or dismiss it
We ARE
Absolutely, D. Soliciting for a panel is much easier. Also, grantmakers always ask which diverse populations are being served, from the federal to the local level. There’s a reason for that. It is an open acknowledgment that diversity matters and that to get money, you’re going to have to make yourself care.
Also, it is hard to achieve balance in a magazine. Also, I don’t know that it needs to be 50%, but some kind of diverse representation I feel is important. We, as Blake says, all human and I understand where he is coming from when he says that but we are not all the same and I think that not only does difference matter, difference can be enriching. Too often, people shy away from difference or dismiss it
We ARE
But by the same token, do you know when your story/poem/whatever was *accepted* because of your sex, race, class, or sexuality?
But by the same token, do you know when your story/poem/whatever was *accepted* because of your sex, race, class, or sexuality?
elisa,
yes, there is a difference between “like” and not “into” but when you automatically put things into a dichotomy, we all sort of jump to that conclusion anyway, right?
apologies on the snappiness of the judgment at your blog. the thing that set it off was that i felt like instead of having a discourse about gender in submissions or readership, which is fleshing itself out in some ways in this comment thread, i felt like you were using the magazine as a platform. and the way the internet works with its echo chamber-mentality at times, it could sorely affect the way in which people view the magazine in the future. from now on are people going to be checking the numbers? and if i publish too many women in the next issue, is it going to be perceived as some sort of corrective move on my part? then people aren’t reading the magazine for the work and the writers but to keep some sort of score, which troubles me. not for my sake, but again for the writers and the magazine.
i’m going to continue and hope that i get more women in this coming issue. but i’m not going to say we want more women writers in the submission guidelines because then i’d have to include every race, culture, etc. and inevitably would forget someone. i want work by everyone. i do agree that the submission guidelines would make one feel like this is male-heavy, but those submission guidelines are a joke at best. they drop references to michael jordan’s illustrious night at MSG and back to the future II. a lot of the pieces i accept don’t follow the word count or amount of entries guidelines and that’s fine. because, like most editors (however deluded), i’d hope you’d get a sense of whether or not your work fit into the coterie of established writers based on the work. meaning the words and not anything else. there’s a definite weird, syntactic play, angular diction thing going on in the magazine and that’s pretty much my only bottomline as much as i have one. i mean, even the “about us” section is pretty much a joke.
i never said i was publishing the best work and that the best work happened to be all male. this is in response to someone further in the comments.
i was publishing the best work that fit into a particular aesthetic that came into me in order under a timeline and that timeline just happened to not work for some people this go round.
elisa,
yes, there is a difference between “like” and not “into” but when you automatically put things into a dichotomy, we all sort of jump to that conclusion anyway, right?
apologies on the snappiness of the judgment at your blog. the thing that set it off was that i felt like instead of having a discourse about gender in submissions or readership, which is fleshing itself out in some ways in this comment thread, i felt like you were using the magazine as a platform. and the way the internet works with its echo chamber-mentality at times, it could sorely affect the way in which people view the magazine in the future. from now on are people going to be checking the numbers? and if i publish too many women in the next issue, is it going to be perceived as some sort of corrective move on my part? then people aren’t reading the magazine for the work and the writers but to keep some sort of score, which troubles me. not for my sake, but again for the writers and the magazine.
i’m going to continue and hope that i get more women in this coming issue. but i’m not going to say we want more women writers in the submission guidelines because then i’d have to include every race, culture, etc. and inevitably would forget someone. i want work by everyone. i do agree that the submission guidelines would make one feel like this is male-heavy, but those submission guidelines are a joke at best. they drop references to michael jordan’s illustrious night at MSG and back to the future II. a lot of the pieces i accept don’t follow the word count or amount of entries guidelines and that’s fine. because, like most editors (however deluded), i’d hope you’d get a sense of whether or not your work fit into the coterie of established writers based on the work. meaning the words and not anything else. there’s a definite weird, syntactic play, angular diction thing going on in the magazine and that’s pretty much my only bottomline as much as i have one. i mean, even the “about us” section is pretty much a joke.
i never said i was publishing the best work and that the best work happened to be all male. this is in response to someone further in the comments.
i was publishing the best work that fit into a particular aesthetic that came into me in order under a timeline and that timeline just happened to not work for some people this go round.
I don’t care who wrote it–if I like it, I like it. Publish what moves you or will move others, Blake. And be done with it.
I don’t care who wrote it–if I like it, I like it. Publish what moves you or will move others, Blake. And be done with it.
Chris, I think it is a question of not being on the radar. We have the same issue.
I’m sick about it too, Kirsten. But hey, you have the best ideas I have read on the subject. You wanna start a revolution? :)
Chris, I think it is a question of not being on the radar. We have the same issue.
I’m sick about it too, Kirsten. But hey, you have the best ideas I have read on the subject. You wanna start a revolution? :)
Sometimes, sometimes, and no.
im in this camp
Sometimes, sometimes, and no.
im in this camp
It’s ignorant to assume you have a good handle of the breadth and width of what myself and other editors read, what we are interested in and the severity of our respective hungers for all sorts of perspectives on how the world is seen a.k.a. what we “like”, based on a few comments on a thread.
It’s ignorant to assume you have a good handle of the breadth and width of what myself and other editors read, what we are interested in and the severity of our respective hungers for all sorts of perspectives on how the world is seen a.k.a. what we “like”, based on a few comments on a thread.
Very well said, Susan.
Very well said, Susan.
this is a brave comment, i think. it moves everything closer to the bell curve argument. i’d like to see this debated.
Because you’re not criticizing them. You’re dismissing them as “pseudo-objective,” as if the value judgements THEY make are simply the product of unconsidered personal preference. Whereas your precious value judgement—your beautiful “It’s an embarrassment of <3 <3 $$$$$mmmmmm riches. Try liking more stuff!"—is somehow taken to be more "objective," or valid. Please.
this is a brave comment, i think. it moves everything closer to the bell curve argument. i’d like to see this debated.
Because you’re not criticizing them. You’re dismissing them as “pseudo-objective,” as if the value judgements THEY make are simply the product of unconsidered personal preference. Whereas your precious value judgement—your beautiful “It’s an embarrassment of <3 <3 $$$$$mmmmmm riches. Try liking more stuff!"—is somehow taken to be more "objective," or valid. Please.
“it could sorely affect the way in which people view the magazine in the future.”
People would have noticed the gender disparity even if Elisa hadn’t pointed it out–as I mentioned in her comments, I noticed that the magazine’s list of aesthetic influences skewed heavily male when I read your guidelines a while back. If people view WAC more warily in the future, that’s because of its editorial choices, not the fact that Elisa drew attention to them. This isn’t on her.
“it could sorely affect the way in which people view the magazine in the future.”
People would have noticed the gender disparity even if Elisa hadn’t pointed it out–as I mentioned in her comments, I noticed that the magazine’s list of aesthetic influences skewed heavily male when I read your guidelines a while back. If people view WAC more warily in the future, that’s because of its editorial choices, not the fact that Elisa drew attention to them. This isn’t on her.
I dunno, bloggers have a responsibility to the arguments and attacks they make as much as editors have a responsibility to the diversity they publish. Elisa is dodging that in here.
I dunno, bloggers have a responsibility to the arguments and attacks they make as much as editors have a responsibility to the diversity they publish. Elisa is dodging that in here.
“And if that pattern occurs in aggregate and over years, than the only logical assumption I can make–giving everyone the benefit of the doubt–is that there is more good writing out there done by men, or–alternately–that women are not trying hard enough to put their work out there. And if that pattern continues over decades, then it becomes clear that women simply aren’t as ambitious, as talented, and/or as committed to writing as men are.”
Er. You’re being funny here, right?
“And if that pattern occurs in aggregate and over years, than the only logical assumption I can make–giving everyone the benefit of the doubt–is that there is more good writing out there done by men, or–alternately–that women are not trying hard enough to put their work out there. And if that pattern continues over decades, then it becomes clear that women simply aren’t as ambitious, as talented, and/or as committed to writing as men are.”
Er. You’re being funny here, right?
This comment isn’t brave. It’s pretty sexist and frightening. The notion that future white male poets could be discouraged from greatness or that they might be endangered is not only reactionary but ludicrous. To suggest that to engage in what has largely been in a thoughtful discussion about gender and publishing and to raise concerns about all-male issues, etc is a mark of mediocrity is insulting as is the commentary that maybe men are just doing it better. I’m choosing to believe this comment is satirical because to believe otherwise is too upsetting for me.
This comment isn’t brave. It’s pretty sexist and frightening. The notion that future white male poets could be discouraged from greatness or that they might be endangered is not only reactionary but ludicrous. To suggest that to engage in what has largely been in a thoughtful discussion about gender and publishing and to raise concerns about all-male issues, etc is a mark of mediocrity is insulting as is the commentary that maybe men are just doing it better. I’m choosing to believe this comment is satirical because to believe otherwise is too upsetting for me.
If this comment is serious (which I kind of think it wasn’t) it’s not brave. It betrays a pretty stunning ignorance of the fucking OBVIOUS barriers women have faced in ANY professional pursuit until relatively recently. And when you say the bell curve argument, I hope you’re not referring to the idea that certain genders/races have more natural ability than others. Because I don’t think that’s a discussion that ever needs to happen here, or anywhere at all.
If this comment is serious (which I kind of think it wasn’t) it’s not brave. It betrays a pretty stunning ignorance of the fucking OBVIOUS barriers women have faced in ANY professional pursuit until relatively recently. And when you say the bell curve argument, I hope you’re not referring to the idea that certain genders/races have more natural ability than others. Because I don’t think that’s a discussion that ever needs to happen here, or anywhere at all.
You put too much faith in the editors. Most magazine publish shit by the ream.
You put too much faith in the editors. Most magazine publish shit by the ream.
How is she dodging it? I’m asking seriously. She wrote, “The current issue of WAC is comprised entirely of male contributors, and I’m not into that.” That’s a fairly straightforward statement of fact, and I just don’t see how it can be construed as some kind of insupportable, irresponsible attack.
How is she dodging it? I’m asking seriously. She wrote, “The current issue of WAC is comprised entirely of male contributors, and I’m not into that.” That’s a fairly straightforward statement of fact, and I just don’t see how it can be construed as some kind of insupportable, irresponsible attack.
Would the world explode if we had that discussion? (Not that I’m interested in it in any way.)
I think it was a brave comment in the sense that she expresses a staunch unwillingness to lower her standards. Obviously it was misguided in many ways. Many editors couldn’t publish great work even if it lit their cigar for them, and there are (of course) many editors who are indeed unduly biased against whatever gender or race or what have you.
Those biases can easily be transcended, though, by any thoughtful well-read person who allows themselves a long enough time with a piece. (Many many rereadings, etc.)
Would the world explode if we had that discussion? (Not that I’m interested in it in any way.)
I think it was a brave comment in the sense that she expresses a staunch unwillingness to lower her standards. Obviously it was misguided in many ways. Many editors couldn’t publish great work even if it lit their cigar for them, and there are (of course) many editors who are indeed unduly biased against whatever gender or race or what have you.
Those biases can easily be transcended, though, by any thoughtful well-read person who allows themselves a long enough time with a piece. (Many many rereadings, etc.)
oh, is it satirical? i didnt see it that way, but maybe you’re right.
i called it brave because its knowingly controversial. its not a popular opinion to have so its brave to come out and say it, there is some scientific grounding behind it. its a debate ive never seen completely played out so im interested in it.
oh, is it satirical? i didnt see it that way, but maybe you’re right.
i called it brave because its knowingly controversial. its not a popular opinion to have so its brave to come out and say it, there is some scientific grounding behind it. its a debate ive never seen completely played out so im interested in it.
As one of the proud women published at WAC I’m offended by this sort of thing. Both issues are beautiful, and I’m happy to share a space with such amazing writers. I agree with several people here: gender ain’t no thing unless you make it a thing. It won’t go away (think Cixous’ bisexuality) but as soon as we stop announcing it as an issue it’ll stop being an issue (insert something here about a village and a child).
Toward any personalized attacks on Blake: quit it.
To Gene (I don’t know how to comment on your comment!): very smart post(s), dude.
I didn’t get through every comment, but has anyone thought of anonymous publishing? Just take that gosh dang name away on the journal–let language do its business. Would we read that? Would we want to? I do oh so love seeing who I’m falling in love with…
As one of the proud women published at WAC I’m offended by this sort of thing. Both issues are beautiful, and I’m happy to share a space with such amazing writers. I agree with several people here: gender ain’t no thing unless you make it a thing. It won’t go away (think Cixous’ bisexuality) but as soon as we stop announcing it as an issue it’ll stop being an issue (insert something here about a village and a child).
Toward any personalized attacks on Blake: quit it.
To Gene (I don’t know how to comment on your comment!): very smart post(s), dude.
I didn’t get through every comment, but has anyone thought of anonymous publishing? Just take that gosh dang name away on the journal–let language do its business. Would we read that? Would we want to? I do oh so love seeing who I’m falling in love with…
what’s an example of an amazing work of literature?
what’s an example of an amazing work of literature?
Likewise, I’m thinking this is Kirsten’s attempt to take this line of thinking (that gender doesn’t matter & one can transcend it, that women writers just haven’t been good writers) to its extreme in an attempt to reveal how ridiculous it is.
She’s pretty clear with some of her indicators: that her sons will face an “uphill battle”, the “wrath” they will incur when they “choose to become great” etc – contrast this with Dickinson and her inability to choose, the notion that editors are putting the “best product” etc.
Kirsten’s very smart and the more I read this, the more I realize she’s taking the traditional assumptions to their extremes.
Telling though for who is praising it and calling what seem like obvious ridiculousness conclusions “brave” …
Likewise, I’m thinking this is Kirsten’s attempt to take this line of thinking (that gender doesn’t matter & one can transcend it, that women writers just haven’t been good writers) to its extreme in an attempt to reveal how ridiculous it is.
She’s pretty clear with some of her indicators: that her sons will face an “uphill battle”, the “wrath” they will incur when they “choose to become great” etc – contrast this with Dickinson and her inability to choose, the notion that editors are putting the “best product” etc.
Kirsten’s very smart and the more I read this, the more I realize she’s taking the traditional assumptions to their extremes.
Telling though for who is praising it and calling what seem like obvious ridiculousness conclusions “brave” …
I disagree that “gender ain’t no thin unless you make it a thing.” Ditto for sex, race, sexuality, etc. These are part of the way we see the world and the world sees us and that gets inscribed in important ways in our language and stories.
I think that a lot of people think that male writing is gender-neutral; that writing from the male perspective and/or from the male identity is somehow universal. Formative characters and authors many young Americans identify with are male: Tom Sawyer, Holden Caulfield, etc. Female characters and writers (Austen, Alcott), etc. are perceived as dangerously “sentimental.” While women read Twain and Salinger as young adults, often (though certainly not always) it is only women reading Austen and Alcott.
In the end, males are often perceived as writing about “human” issues in “human” language, while women’s perspective and voices tend to be marginalized or misunderstood as just that–women’s. Belonging NOT to everyone. Ditto for “white” writing (perceived as neutral and universal) vs. writing by people of color. Ditto for heterosexual writing, etc.
This is oversimplifying the nuances that are found in our spectrum of identities, but it does point toward a problem in editing and publishing: what a female identity produces has a tendency to get marginalized and what a male identity produces has a tendency to be put forward as human, transcendent, universal.
Our personal histories do not necessarily define, but certainly influence our voices. I’m not sure that “as soon as we stop announcing it as in issue it’ll stop being an issue.”
I disagree that “gender ain’t no thin unless you make it a thing.” Ditto for sex, race, sexuality, etc. These are part of the way we see the world and the world sees us and that gets inscribed in important ways in our language and stories.
I think that a lot of people think that male writing is gender-neutral; that writing from the male perspective and/or from the male identity is somehow universal. Formative characters and authors many young Americans identify with are male: Tom Sawyer, Holden Caulfield, etc. Female characters and writers (Austen, Alcott), etc. are perceived as dangerously “sentimental.” While women read Twain and Salinger as young adults, often (though certainly not always) it is only women reading Austen and Alcott.
In the end, males are often perceived as writing about “human” issues in “human” language, while women’s perspective and voices tend to be marginalized or misunderstood as just that–women’s. Belonging NOT to everyone. Ditto for “white” writing (perceived as neutral and universal) vs. writing by people of color. Ditto for heterosexual writing, etc.
This is oversimplifying the nuances that are found in our spectrum of identities, but it does point toward a problem in editing and publishing: what a female identity produces has a tendency to get marginalized and what a male identity produces has a tendency to be put forward as human, transcendent, universal.
Our personal histories do not necessarily define, but certainly influence our voices. I’m not sure that “as soon as we stop announcing it as in issue it’ll stop being an issue.”
Also: while blind submissions are important, this does not necessarily resolve the situation, as the power still rests with a voice that performs a penis instead of a vagina.
Also: while blind submissions are important, this does not necessarily resolve the situation, as the power still rests with a voice that performs a penis instead of a vagina.
paradise lost
paradise lost
Yeah, Amy. I had to read it a few times because I know her poetry.
Yeah, Amy. I had to read it a few times because I know her poetry.
yeah, im thinking its satirical also, the more i read it. its a really genius comment.
still would like to hear the debate played out though.
yeah, im thinking its satirical also, the more i read it. its a really genius comment.
still would like to hear the debate played out though.
“a voice that performs a penis instead of a vagina.”
For real?
“a voice that performs a penis instead of a vagina.”
For real?
ah. thanks.
ah. thanks.
Yes, for real, “demi-puppet”.
But if you can’t understand the complexity behind that metaphor, esp as Heather has taken the time to outline some of the complexities within that metaphor, why don’t you just tell another “joke” about “barfing up noodles” on your dick again so that you don’t have to actually think and engage with what’s going on? You know, diffuse any real interrogation with your special brand of “humor”…
Yes, for real, “demi-puppet”.
But if you can’t understand the complexity behind that metaphor, esp as Heather has taken the time to outline some of the complexities within that metaphor, why don’t you just tell another “joke” about “barfing up noodles” on your dick again so that you don’t have to actually think and engage with what’s going on? You know, diffuse any real interrogation with your special brand of “humor”…
I didn’t like paradise lost all that much. I like Buffalo Bill’s/defunct. Might be wary of calling it “an amazing work of literature” but not sure exactly why. Maybe because that statement opens itself up to easy criticisms like “I didn’t like paradise lost all that much”.
I didn’t like paradise lost all that much. I like Buffalo Bill’s/defunct. Might be wary of calling it “an amazing work of literature” but not sure exactly why. Maybe because that statement opens itself up to easy criticisms like “I didn’t like paradise lost all that much”.
Kirsten just wrote to me and confirmed: it’s satirical, and as she notes, scary that she imitated the systemic model of dismissing women so well that some folks applauded instead of getting the ridiculousness.
Kirsten just wrote to me and confirmed: it’s satirical, and as she notes, scary that she imitated the systemic model of dismissing women so well that some folks applauded instead of getting the ridiculousness.
Please, explain the complexity to me, amy. I mean that.
Please, explain the complexity to me, amy. I mean that.
Is that really a criticism though, Trey?
Is that really a criticism though, Trey?
That’s why it’s such an effective rhetorical tactic–inevitably a few people will jump to agree with your caricature of a position, and in doing so reveal that it’s not much of a caricature at all.
That’s why it’s such an effective rhetorical tactic–inevitably a few people will jump to agree with your caricature of a position, and in doing so reveal that it’s not much of a caricature at all.
To Heather:
1. Read what Cixous says about language/bisexuality. I hope you’ll like it.
2. I don’t mean submissions, I mean what the audience gets to look at. No names, just words.
To demi:
write that book of poems for me, please.
To Heather:
1. Read what Cixous says about language/bisexuality. I hope you’ll like it.
2. I don’t mean submissions, I mean what the audience gets to look at. No names, just words.
To demi:
write that book of poems for me, please.
Lovely. Yet another doting materialist who thinks that transcendence is a myth. Yawn.
Lovely. Yet another doting materialist who thinks that transcendence is a myth. Yawn.
I guess you could call it brave In that sense–but yeah, I think it’s satirical, probably. As for the scientific grounding you mention–Charles Murray and his followers have been as discredited as any race-theory peddlers in the last few years. There’s always someone in the fringes of the scientific community trying push the old, old idea that race or sex determines intellect, at least in part–but those crackpot theories are always disproved by legitmate scientists. Not that you were talking about race–I know you weren’t–but that’s usually what these so-called “scientific discussions” are in service of–trying to push the idea that one race is superior to another. I didn’t want to have that discussion because it’s like discussing the value of eugenics–it’s an intellectual smokescreen for hateful ideas, in my opinion.
Again, Darby, just to be clear–I know you weren’t promoting racism or sexism or anything like that. Just tryingbto explain why I don’t consider that to be a legitimate topic ofvdiscussion.
What book?
I guess you could call it brave In that sense–but yeah, I think it’s satirical, probably. As for the scientific grounding you mention–Charles Murray and his followers have been as discredited as any race-theory peddlers in the last few years. There’s always someone in the fringes of the scientific community trying push the old, old idea that race or sex determines intellect, at least in part–but those crackpot theories are always disproved by legitmate scientists. Not that you were talking about race–I know you weren’t–but that’s usually what these so-called “scientific discussions” are in service of–trying to push the idea that one race is superior to another. I didn’t want to have that discussion because it’s like discussing the value of eugenics–it’s an intellectual smokescreen for hateful ideas, in my opinion.
Again, Darby, just to be clear–I know you weren’t promoting racism or sexism or anything like that. Just tryingbto explain why I don’t consider that to be a legitimate topic ofvdiscussion.
What book?
I read a few comments, then scrolled down.
I think using an equal mix of genders for the sake of “diversity” is pretty stupid. Publish the stories that excite you. Who cares about that shit?
One time, someone gave me shit about mostly publishing men. Well, I mostly receive submissions from men, so that’s the way it works out. The person who gave me shit edits a science fiction mag. She uses an equal gender mix for the sake of diversity, which is stupid. She gave me shit in response to an issue where she thought all the contributors were male. There was actually one female contributor, but her name did not make this obvious. It also did not help matters that I used the jokey name, No Girls Allowed Press, as my publisher.
The next issue of my journal will have mostly female contributors. This is just the way things turned out. I just really don’t give a fuck.
While I don’t think there’s any real problem with We Are Champion being all male, Gene’s comment more than explicating that there are actually quite sound reasonings behind the decisions made, and owning those decisions, not playing the ‘art is art’ game, the ‘language over body’ thing is really pernicious. Blake, you have a body too, languaging. “Coasting on the accomplishments of one’s DNA demands an insurmountable allegiance to the awe an electrical socket inspires. In this way, a vehicle moves the ground beneath it.” – Noah Eli Gordon. Aesthetics are fine, but not enough. There is also the aesthetics of aesthetics to be concerned about, what comprises an aesthetic as aesthetic, the container of the container, the form of the form, remembering that form is content, of course, of course. What’s weirdest, dude, is that you’re own publishing practice, here, with Liquidator, LiveGiants, etc., is always quite mindful and searching for writers of different context, bent, and kind, all of which a thing like ‘gender’ ultimately is. You do indeed factor it in. You look for it, you make an effort. It’s part of why I like you. And why I learn so much by and like so much of what you show us. So I don’t know why you play this devil’s advocate game with such a tinderbox issue when your own values draw you to look again and again toward the aesthetic inputs bits and pieces, that are missing in some, can produce in others, the new, weird and individual aesthetic architectures a tint or protrusion or cavity can bring, not because of the bits and pieces per se, but because bodies are divided against themselves by subjectivity and by the regimes of the social and are both independent because of it as well as massively controlled precisely because of their independence. And so aesthetics are not elevated from bodies but wended together with how specific skills and histories have put people in place out of place and put out of place people into places they still cannot be. In all these cases, people are in bodies and being in them, are them. So is their language, which comes out of them.
I read a few comments, then scrolled down.
I think using an equal mix of genders for the sake of “diversity” is pretty stupid. Publish the stories that excite you. Who cares about that shit?
One time, someone gave me shit about mostly publishing men. Well, I mostly receive submissions from men, so that’s the way it works out. The person who gave me shit edits a science fiction mag. She uses an equal gender mix for the sake of diversity, which is stupid. She gave me shit in response to an issue where she thought all the contributors were male. There was actually one female contributor, but her name did not make this obvious. It also did not help matters that I used the jokey name, No Girls Allowed Press, as my publisher.
The next issue of my journal will have mostly female contributors. This is just the way things turned out. I just really don’t give a fuck.
While I don’t think there’s any real problem with We Are Champion being all male, Gene’s comment more than explicating that there are actually quite sound reasonings behind the decisions made, and owning those decisions, not playing the ‘art is art’ game, the ‘language over body’ thing is really pernicious. Blake, you have a body too, languaging. “Coasting on the accomplishments of one’s DNA demands an insurmountable allegiance to the awe an electrical socket inspires. In this way, a vehicle moves the ground beneath it.” – Noah Eli Gordon. Aesthetics are fine, but not enough. There is also the aesthetics of aesthetics to be concerned about, what comprises an aesthetic as aesthetic, the container of the container, the form of the form, remembering that form is content, of course, of course. What’s weirdest, dude, is that you’re own publishing practice, here, with Liquidator, LiveGiants, etc., is always quite mindful and searching for writers of different context, bent, and kind, all of which a thing like ‘gender’ ultimately is. You do indeed factor it in. You look for it, you make an effort. It’s part of why I like you. And why I learn so much by and like so much of what you show us. So I don’t know why you play this devil’s advocate game with such a tinderbox issue when your own values draw you to look again and again toward the aesthetic inputs bits and pieces, that are missing in some, can produce in others, the new, weird and individual aesthetic architectures a tint or protrusion or cavity can bring, not because of the bits and pieces per se, but because bodies are divided against themselves by subjectivity and by the regimes of the social and are both independent because of it as well as massively controlled precisely because of their independence. And so aesthetics are not elevated from bodies but wended together with how specific skills and histories have put people in place out of place and put out of place people into places they still cannot be. In all these cases, people are in bodies and being in them, are them. So is their language, which comes out of them.
I guess not. I could make criticisms though, like I could say it’s boring, or too long, etc. I’m not trying to specifically attack your choice of paradise lost though. Just that it’s possible to criticize anything. Which wasn’t a very good point, really, because something being criticized doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t amazing. But I doubt anyone will ever find something that everyone universally agrees is amazing. so picking an amazing work of literature is hard. I mean, what are the criteria? I am finding long ways to say nothing.
I guess not. I could make criticisms though, like I could say it’s boring, or too long, etc. I’m not trying to specifically attack your choice of paradise lost though. Just that it’s possible to criticize anything. Which wasn’t a very good point, really, because something being criticized doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t amazing. But I doubt anyone will ever find something that everyone universally agrees is amazing. so picking an amazing work of literature is hard. I mean, what are the criteria? I am finding long ways to say nothing.
Amber, I agree with you, but how much value is there in declaring it totally off the board, discussion-wise? I probably wouldn’t participate in it (boring, seen it, etc), and I sense that you wouldn’t either, but goofy ideas change more rapidly if they’re tossed out into the aether of open discussion.
Amber, I agree with you, but how much value is there in declaring it totally off the board, discussion-wise? I probably wouldn’t participate in it (boring, seen it, etc), and I sense that you wouldn’t either, but goofy ideas change more rapidly if they’re tossed out into the aether of open discussion.
Why should anything need universal agreement to be amazing? [Shouldn’t anything amazing stir up varieties of individual thought?]
Not totally sure I could tell you the criteria. The more I read it seems like each individual piece of writing creates its own criteria. PL certainly blows its own out of the friggin water, though.
I think PL can withstand criticisms of “boring,” or “too long.”
Why should anything need universal agreement to be amazing? [Shouldn’t anything amazing stir up varieties of individual thought?]
Not totally sure I could tell you the criteria. The more I read it seems like each individual piece of writing creates its own criteria. PL certainly blows its own out of the friggin water, though.
I think PL can withstand criticisms of “boring,” or “too long.”
“Shouldn’t anything amazing stir up varieties of individual thought?”
Yes. Perfect. Being sincere.
“Shouldn’t anything amazing stir up varieties of individual thought?”
Yes. Perfect. Being sincere.
These are all German suffixes? These are common suffixes of surnames of Ashkenazi Jews?
These are all German suffixes? These are common suffixes of surnames of Ashkenazi Jews?
“Would we want to?” No, I think most readers want the comfort zone of knowing who to like.
“Would we want to?” No, I think most readers want the comfort zone of knowing who to like.
@amber, i dont consider anything to not be a legitimte topic of discussion. im naive when it comes to what someone else’s sense of what’s ridiculous is, since my thirst to actually have a real discussion supersedes it. no question is a stupid question.
ok, lets see if this discussion can actually take place instead of it just being dismissed.
whether the thing has roots in reality, i dont know and dont care much, but i think about this alot as a thought experiment, because im skeptical of the idea of a mandated diversity. Kristen’s comment fits into a purely evolutionary and rational ethic, and im interested in exploring that extreme. is there a mandate that says in any particular scenario, men = women? i think the differences between men and women, or even other ethnicities, are intense and complex, and its impossible to come to concrete conclusions as to where we are actually equate, in which case where do we say, we equate enough. everything gets mixed up in the concept of fairness. its not fair that men have something that women dont have, but i dont believe in a mandated fairness either. absolute equality is an impossibility. we can manufacture something that moves toward equality to an extent that we are comfortable with it, like what AA does, but its not out of the realm of possibility in my head that certain ethnicities or genders are just better or worse at certain things. not to say writing, necessarily, but not to dismiss it either. again, ive had these thoughts for years but have never said it because it is intensely controversial and im not that brave, so i was perked by that comment.
how is this argued against within a rational ethic (ie. biocentric atheism)? i can argue it in a system where human fairness is mandate, such as christianity, but if i dont believe in that, i dont know how it can be argued, so im open to debate it.
thanks.
@amber, i dont consider anything to not be a legitimte topic of discussion. im naive when it comes to what someone else’s sense of what’s ridiculous is, since my thirst to actually have a real discussion supersedes it. no question is a stupid question.
ok, lets see if this discussion can actually take place instead of it just being dismissed.
whether the thing has roots in reality, i dont know and dont care much, but i think about this alot as a thought experiment, because im skeptical of the idea of a mandated diversity. Kristen’s comment fits into a purely evolutionary and rational ethic, and im interested in exploring that extreme. is there a mandate that says in any particular scenario, men = women? i think the differences between men and women, or even other ethnicities, are intense and complex, and its impossible to come to concrete conclusions as to where we are actually equate, in which case where do we say, we equate enough. everything gets mixed up in the concept of fairness. its not fair that men have something that women dont have, but i dont believe in a mandated fairness either. absolute equality is an impossibility. we can manufacture something that moves toward equality to an extent that we are comfortable with it, like what AA does, but its not out of the realm of possibility in my head that certain ethnicities or genders are just better or worse at certain things. not to say writing, necessarily, but not to dismiss it either. again, ive had these thoughts for years but have never said it because it is intensely controversial and im not that brave, so i was perked by that comment.
how is this argued against within a rational ethic (ie. biocentric atheism)? i can argue it in a system where human fairness is mandate, such as christianity, but if i dont believe in that, i dont know how it can be argued, so im open to debate it.
thanks.
Heather,
Blind submissions don’t work for the situation. OK.
What does?
Heather,
Blind submissions don’t work for the situation. OK.
What does?
> how, not what
How? as in the neuroscience? or how, as in the cultural. Either way, there are answers worth investigating instead of putting the burden of proof on a commenter
Did colleges stop kicking everyone’s asses about this during the Lewinsky/Cheney years or something?
Sincerely,
Gramps
> how, not what
How? as in the neuroscience? or how, as in the cultural. Either way, there are answers worth investigating instead of putting the burden of proof on a commenter
Did colleges stop kicking everyone’s asses about this during the Lewinsky/Cheney years or something?
Sincerely,
Gramps
“but its not out of the realm of possibility in my head that certain ethnicities or genders are just better or worse at certain things. not to say writing, necessarily, but not to dismiss it either.”
Darby, i’m not the thought police, and you’re of course welcome to have that conversation with anyone who will have it with you. However, I would hate to see it take place at HTML; to have that kind of discussion happen dispassionately here would make me profoundly sad and uncomfortable here, in a way I never have been here before.
“but its not out of the realm of possibility in my head that certain ethnicities or genders are just better or worse at certain things. not to say writing, necessarily, but not to dismiss it either.”
Darby, i’m not the thought police, and you’re of course welcome to have that conversation with anyone who will have it with you. However, I would hate to see it take place at HTML; to have that kind of discussion happen dispassionately here would make me profoundly sad and uncomfortable here, in a way I never have been here before.
‘whether the thing has roots in reality, i dont know and dont care much,’
i shouldnt say that because i am aware of the social implications of this argument and is why i tread lightly on it.
‘whether the thing has roots in reality, i dont know and dont care much,’
i shouldnt say that because i am aware of the social implications of this argument and is why i tread lightly on it.
it is nice to know tyranny still occurs despite my exclusion.
man. it took me a while to read through everything and figure out what was going on.
this place is turning into “days of our lives” except it’s playing on a television in the teacher’s lounge.
it appeared originally blake was attacked for being perceived as sexist or insensitive. but Blake was only broaching a subject because of gene’s WAC, correct? so the issue is with gene’s WAC publishing only “men”?
i am a little confused here. i read through WAC and found effeminacy. gene just happens to enjoy it coming from effeminate male voices. so the issue isn’t about “gender”. is it?
shit, what is the issue? i don’t get it.
gene sat in a room, alone, and published something affable to his reality.
but the majority disagree with gene, so they attack his individual freedom. the majority disagree because it is a perceived threat. Perceived threats are always more frightening than concrete threats.
the majority can only communicate one idea to the individual: you are different.
so what gene did was construct a statue for public viewing. but the statue makes some people feel inadequate. Those people want to tear down the statue to promote a notion of “equality”, but, it isn’t about equality at all. it is about bitterness and devaluing others because you feel devalued.
why not just construct your own statue? maybe make it bigger and awesomer or something?
i mean at least that’s fucking productive.
another thing to do is question why you feel inadequate.
the funny thing is, what most people here don’t get, is why gender is important.
or isn’t.
everything you know has been taught. why is there any reaction looking at a list of “male” names in a journal? why do you not have the same aggressive reaction towards other patterns, red and white checkers?
you people have such bullshit expectations. everything is not the way you want it to be.
(it is okay. (i’m afraid of dying too.) don’t panic.)
are we attacking the ideology or the practitioner?
fuck. seriously. anyone attacking gene is fucking shameful. have any of you arrogant fucks spent any time with him? I am guessing not.
homeboy is of the sweetest boy you’ll meet.
i think people just want something to hate. it makes them feel good.
i’ll be the sadist of your choice.
you can hate me. i don’t mind.
can’t we kill this thread and talk about books.
man, i just read “frowns need friends too.” it is some serious shit.
let’s do a giveaway.
can we do that?
i’ll buy three copies. give those away.
it is nice to know tyranny still occurs despite my exclusion.
man. it took me a while to read through everything and figure out what was going on.
this place is turning into “days of our lives” except it’s playing on a television in the teacher’s lounge.
it appeared originally blake was attacked for being perceived as sexist or insensitive. but Blake was only broaching a subject because of gene’s WAC, correct? so the issue is with gene’s WAC publishing only “men”?
i am a little confused here. i read through WAC and found effeminacy. gene just happens to enjoy it coming from effeminate male voices. so the issue isn’t about “gender”. is it?
shit, what is the issue? i don’t get it.
gene sat in a room, alone, and published something affable to his reality.
but the majority disagree with gene, so they attack his individual freedom. the majority disagree because it is a perceived threat. Perceived threats are always more frightening than concrete threats.
the majority can only communicate one idea to the individual: you are different.
so what gene did was construct a statue for public viewing. but the statue makes some people feel inadequate. Those people want to tear down the statue to promote a notion of “equality”, but, it isn’t about equality at all. it is about bitterness and devaluing others because you feel devalued.
why not just construct your own statue? maybe make it bigger and awesomer or something?
i mean at least that’s fucking productive.
another thing to do is question why you feel inadequate.
the funny thing is, what most people here don’t get, is why gender is important.
or isn’t.
everything you know has been taught. why is there any reaction looking at a list of “male” names in a journal? why do you not have the same aggressive reaction towards other patterns, red and white checkers?
you people have such bullshit expectations. everything is not the way you want it to be.
(it is okay. (i’m afraid of dying too.) don’t panic.)
are we attacking the ideology or the practitioner?
fuck. seriously. anyone attacking gene is fucking shameful. have any of you arrogant fucks spent any time with him? I am guessing not.
homeboy is of the sweetest boy you’ll meet.
i think people just want something to hate. it makes them feel good.
i’ll be the sadist of your choice.
you can hate me. i don’t mind.
can’t we kill this thread and talk about books.
man, i just read “frowns need friends too.” it is some serious shit.
let’s do a giveaway.
can we do that?
i’ll buy three copies. give those away.
are we writing? is everyone writing? is everyone else writing?
are we writing? is everyone writing? is everyone else writing?
oh, but, david, these bodies are people. people. people. people. yes they have bodies but they are people. apply your framework, they are people. if kristina born had a dick, there’d be the book. if dottie lasky was a blue corn on the cob and could still read aloud, yum. people. people. people. you stick your modifiers on, assume it where you want. do not assume i have to do that same. it’s nauseous.
oh, but, david, these bodies are people. people. people. people. yes they have bodies but they are people. apply your framework, they are people. if kristina born had a dick, there’d be the book. if dottie lasky was a blue corn on the cob and could still read aloud, yum. people. people. people. you stick your modifiers on, assume it where you want. do not assume i have to do that same. it’s nauseous.
@darby. you might be able to build it so it is a social construct within a larger evolutionary construct, and the ethics that the former depend on weigh more heavily than the ethics of the latter. Since within a social construct, justice can have precedence, and, for ethnic differences, since humans have been consistently moving out of (or often, taken out of by force) the environments their brains and bodies evolved in, that system of justice is a little more confusing, but for the sake of maintaining this new mega-environment, the justice system needs to accomodate it. for gender differences, the justice system should have been accomodating it from the begin of justice systems.
@darby. you might be able to build it so it is a social construct within a larger evolutionary construct, and the ethics that the former depend on weigh more heavily than the ethics of the latter. Since within a social construct, justice can have precedence, and, for ethnic differences, since humans have been consistently moving out of (or often, taken out of by force) the environments their brains and bodies evolved in, that system of justice is a little more confusing, but for the sake of maintaining this new mega-environment, the justice system needs to accomodate it. for gender differences, the justice system should have been accomodating it from the begin of justice systems.
@darby2. maybe. but the issue there is it is a moving away from rationalism. maybe that’s how it has to work, but it requires a new concept of Truth in your head, or atleast assigning a different value to truth. what you are basically saying is here is a rationale for ignoring something you would otherwise perceive as true. that the consequences of acknowledging a truth are enough to make it not true. we would have to build separate definitions of right and wrong, true and false, depending on whether we are considering things in a social construct or an evolutionary construct.
@darby2. maybe. but the issue there is it is a moving away from rationalism. maybe that’s how it has to work, but it requires a new concept of Truth in your head, or atleast assigning a different value to truth. what you are basically saying is here is a rationale for ignoring something you would otherwise perceive as true. that the consequences of acknowledging a truth are enough to make it not true. we would have to build separate definitions of right and wrong, true and false, depending on whether we are considering things in a social construct or an evolutionary construct.
I’m not sure if this is actually you, Blake, or some faux-anon using your name to respond cos normally your name weblinks to your blog, but, nevertheless, on your point about Kristina Born and Dottie Lasky, there’s a difference – even today, when apparently we can all withdraw from reality willy nilly, that’s how free we are – still there’s a difference between if and is. Despite constant reports to the contrary, the gap between constituencies continues to exist and it skewers equality in it. And you – or Blake, if this is not, in fact, Blake – do concern yourself with the ‘is’ despite all your protestations about doing the same even ‘if’ the ‘is’ were otherwise. Basically, if Kristina Born had a dick, there would actually not be the book there is, because there would not be the woman there is to have (dis)integrated it. But that is not because the absence of a dick defines her amazing art as hers alone but rather because the specificity of a body in time and space means something, not an interchangeable nothing. Even if your dick were to be traded for my dick, the difference would be chasmic by virtue of the trade between two persons. You would no longer be the body you are, nor I the person I am. Specificity matters. And gender is specific. It is a specification that is as concrete as it is nebulous. It’s where difference deepens and disappears, leaving the gap where it was as the equality before us. If i stick my modifiers on, I stick them on — what exactly?, except more modifiers modifying. People are not people no matter how many times the word is repeated, or the bodies, no more than bodies are only human things, or concepts and not objects, as if concepts were not objects. Vanessa place and Robert Fitterman: “If conceptual writing is considered as representation, it must be considered as embodied. As embodied, it must be considered as gendered. As gendered, it must be considered. Consideraton is what is given to complete the acceptance of any contractual offer. The social contract hinges on such embodied considerations.” That goes for all writing. My point being that I don’t really assume you, if it is you, have to do the same as I but nor do I accept, then, that I should have to be assumed to be included in your definition of people. If you will not allow me embodied consideration or give me embodied consideration of your own, then you force your contract – the ‘people’ – upon me. In which case, I opt out of your definition of the ‘people’. I boycott the body you refuse to see is a matter of the me I am in. I am not a person.
I’m not sure if this is actually you, Blake, or some faux-anon using your name to respond cos normally your name weblinks to your blog, but, nevertheless, on your point about Kristina Born and Dottie Lasky, there’s a difference – even today, when apparently we can all withdraw from reality willy nilly, that’s how free we are – still there’s a difference between if and is. Despite constant reports to the contrary, the gap between constituencies continues to exist and it skewers equality in it. And you – or Blake, if this is not, in fact, Blake – do concern yourself with the ‘is’ despite all your protestations about doing the same even ‘if’ the ‘is’ were otherwise. Basically, if Kristina Born had a dick, there would actually not be the book there is, because there would not be the woman there is to have (dis)integrated it. But that is not because the absence of a dick defines her amazing art as hers alone but rather because the specificity of a body in time and space means something, not an interchangeable nothing. Even if your dick were to be traded for my dick, the difference would be chasmic by virtue of the trade between two persons. You would no longer be the body you are, nor I the person I am. Specificity matters. And gender is specific. It is a specification that is as concrete as it is nebulous. It’s where difference deepens and disappears, leaving the gap where it was as the equality before us. If i stick my modifiers on, I stick them on — what exactly?, except more modifiers modifying. People are not people no matter how many times the word is repeated, or the bodies, no more than bodies are only human things, or concepts and not objects, as if concepts were not objects. Vanessa place and Robert Fitterman: “If conceptual writing is considered as representation, it must be considered as embodied. As embodied, it must be considered as gendered. As gendered, it must be considered. Consideraton is what is given to complete the acceptance of any contractual offer. The social contract hinges on such embodied considerations.” That goes for all writing. My point being that I don’t really assume you, if it is you, have to do the same as I but nor do I accept, then, that I should have to be assumed to be included in your definition of people. If you will not allow me embodied consideration or give me embodied consideration of your own, then you force your contract – the ‘people’ – upon me. In which case, I opt out of your definition of the ‘people’. I boycott the body you refuse to see is a matter of the me I am in. I am not a person.
Hey Sean,
While I disagree with those who say that gender, sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. doesn’t or shouldn’t matter—and strongly disagree with the idea that we should stop talking about it, I’m not sure what editors ought to do (which is of course the impetus of this whole discussion & which I had breezily avoided, failing to have any sort of workable solution).
Is that a cop out? I think the lack of an answer suggests the complexity of this issue.
Personally, I’m not even upset with editors who publish predominantly males; I don’t harbor them any ill will. I know they are publishing what excites them, and a lot of it excites me too. And seeing that a journal publishes mostly males wouldn’t necessarily keep me from submitting to them, although it might—consciously or subconsciously. I AM upset with those who think that groups and/or journals which seek to support those who have traditionally not had as much power, in the literary world, as, well, white heterosexual males, are NOT important. Community can be very imperative for those who have historically been disenfranchised and whose voices continue, in many ways, to not be as privileged as the white, male, and/or heterosexual voice.
Seeking to become more aware of one’s own biases, wherever they lie, seems an important start, as others here have suggested. I think there are a variety of possible strategies & that any editor is responsible to him- or herself to think about what s/he can or ought to do. Being aware, re: this conversation, that women might be underrepresented in many journals (not to mention in winning awards), and that this might not have to do with their lack of “quality” as writers but with other variables, I might, if I were an editor & noticed I was publishing mostly men, say “Hey, I want to publish a diverse range of the best writers. Obviously all or even most of the best writers aren’t male. Why aren’t women sending me more stuff? Am I not interested in the stuff most women are sending me? What am I missing out on?” And maybe: “Let me go out of my way to try to court some women writers.”
Hey Sean,
While I disagree with those who say that gender, sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. doesn’t or shouldn’t matter—and strongly disagree with the idea that we should stop talking about it, I’m not sure what editors ought to do (which is of course the impetus of this whole discussion & which I had breezily avoided, failing to have any sort of workable solution).
Is that a cop out? I think the lack of an answer suggests the complexity of this issue.
Personally, I’m not even upset with editors who publish predominantly males; I don’t harbor them any ill will. I know they are publishing what excites them, and a lot of it excites me too. And seeing that a journal publishes mostly males wouldn’t necessarily keep me from submitting to them, although it might—consciously or subconsciously. I AM upset with those who think that groups and/or journals which seek to support those who have traditionally not had as much power, in the literary world, as, well, white heterosexual males, are NOT important. Community can be very imperative for those who have historically been disenfranchised and whose voices continue, in many ways, to not be as privileged as the white, male, and/or heterosexual voice.
Seeking to become more aware of one’s own biases, wherever they lie, seems an important start, as others here have suggested. I think there are a variety of possible strategies & that any editor is responsible to him- or herself to think about what s/he can or ought to do. Being aware, re: this conversation, that women might be underrepresented in many journals (not to mention in winning awards), and that this might not have to do with their lack of “quality” as writers but with other variables, I might, if I were an editor & noticed I was publishing mostly men, say “Hey, I want to publish a diverse range of the best writers. Obviously all or even most of the best writers aren’t male. Why aren’t women sending me more stuff? Am I not interested in the stuff most women are sending me? What am I missing out on?” And maybe: “Let me go out of my way to try to court some women writers.”
Also: I don’t mean that MOST of the best writers are women–I mean it’s a good bit of everyone in the mix!
Also: I don’t mean that MOST of the best writers are women–I mean it’s a good bit of everyone in the mix!
Riffing off of the title of this post, I came across this: http://www.lacan.com/badbodies.htm.
Riffing off of the title of this post, I came across this: http://www.lacan.com/badbodies.htm.
@darby. fair enough. i can grasp conflicting and hierarchical ethical right vs. wrongs more than I can conflicting and hierarchical true vs. falsities (since i think multiple truths gets more philosophically heavy and also may have a quantum mechanics tangent if we stretched the hierarchy not holistically but inwardly), but for ethical ‘rights’ or ‘goods’ within a social construct, that which is ethically ‘good’ is anything that favors peace and/or the stabilization of that society. within an evolutionary construct, that which is ethically ‘good’ is anything that supports the survival of humanity. i think its fair that we can move between these ethical goods depending on situations. this solves the problem as if it were an ethical dilemma, not an ontological one. how do you solve the ontological dilemma?
@darby. fair enough. i can grasp conflicting and hierarchical ethical right vs. wrongs more than I can conflicting and hierarchical true vs. falsities (since i think multiple truths gets more philosophically heavy and also may have a quantum mechanics tangent if we stretched the hierarchy not holistically but inwardly), but for ethical ‘rights’ or ‘goods’ within a social construct, that which is ethically ‘good’ is anything that favors peace and/or the stabilization of that society. within an evolutionary construct, that which is ethically ‘good’ is anything that supports the survival of humanity. i think its fair that we can move between these ethical goods depending on situations. this solves the problem as if it were an ethical dilemma, not an ontological one. how do you solve the ontological dilemma?
darby,
society is synonymous with majority.
the only true threat of a majority is towards individuality.
how can anything be ethical if the individual suffers?
how can there ever be peace if the links of the chain are compressed dust?
how is anything ethical easier to understand ? doesn’t ethics shift with the majority? or are you saying, the majority dictates, so it is easy to know how you suck.
they’ll tell you.
in droves.
you suck.
you are different.
is that what you are conveying here?
darby,
society is synonymous with majority.
the only true threat of a majority is towards individuality.
how can anything be ethical if the individual suffers?
how can there ever be peace if the links of the chain are compressed dust?
how is anything ethical easier to understand ? doesn’t ethics shift with the majority? or are you saying, the majority dictates, so it is easy to know how you suck.
they’ll tell you.
in droves.
you suck.
you are different.
is that what you are conveying here?
i had no idea gene was asian until now. this doesn’t change how i feel; i guess this is my point.
i had no idea gene was asian until now. this doesn’t change how i feel; i guess this is my point.
im trying to attach different ethical constructs to individuals and to society. I’m grouping all of society together and calling it one entity and applying a new ethical construct to it, in the hopes i can do something similar for Truth, but i dont think i can.
im trying to attach different ethical constructs to individuals and to society. I’m grouping all of society together and calling it one entity and applying a new ethical construct to it, in the hopes i can do something similar for Truth, but i dont think i can.
do you value ‘right and wrong’ over ‘true and false’ ?
do you value ‘right and wrong’ over ‘true and false’ ?
Criticizing something or someone, fairly and civilly, isn’t the same as attacking individual freedom. I mean come on. How about a book review? Is that an attack on the author’s free speech? If a journal stands on its own solid writing, can’t it withstand someone stating an obvious, superficial fact about it? Not even an opinion, but a plain fact? How weak an object must it be if it can’t withstand that? Why does it need so many comments to defend it against a statement of fact?
Criticizing something or someone, fairly and civilly, isn’t the same as attacking individual freedom. I mean come on. How about a book review? Is that an attack on the author’s free speech? If a journal stands on its own solid writing, can’t it withstand someone stating an obvious, superficial fact about it? Not even an opinion, but a plain fact? How weak an object must it be if it can’t withstand that? Why does it need so many comments to defend it against a statement of fact?
@darby. no. true and false come before right and wrong. i base what i think is right on whether there is evidence that proves it is true.
@darby. no. true and false come before right and wrong. i base what i think is right on whether there is evidence that proves it is true.
@darby. rationalism.
@darby. rationalism.
@darby. nihilism.
@darby. nihilism.
@darby. stop splitting yourself and own what you say.
@darby. stop splitting yourself and own what you say.
@darby. coward.
@darby. coward.
I go to work and come back to find this? Wow. Interesting evolution for this topic. Hey, do you guys know this girl called Katie Rophie? “Just kidding”.
I go to work and come back to find this? Wow. Interesting evolution for this topic. Hey, do you guys know this girl called Katie Rophie? “Just kidding”.
hi elisa.
so smacking my face with your hand is okay because 1.) you disagree with my face because it doesn’t match your aesthetic 2.)you smack my face “nicely”.
?
what is this talk of free speech? i don’t give a shit about the constitution.
i said his individual freedom. what i mean is his individuality.
you want him to conform to your ideology which really is just a manifestation of your individuality.
you brought up readership earlier. who said gene does or does not care about readership?
you are so full of assumptions & expectations.
gene did not try to push his bullshit ideology on you. he simply constructed a statue of what he feels.
you on the other hand, have 14 assholes and a belly bulging with laxative.
why are you being uptight about this.
seriously.
hi elisa.
so smacking my face with your hand is okay because 1.) you disagree with my face because it doesn’t match your aesthetic 2.)you smack my face “nicely”.
?
what is this talk of free speech? i don’t give a shit about the constitution.
i said his individual freedom. what i mean is his individuality.
you want him to conform to your ideology which really is just a manifestation of your individuality.
you brought up readership earlier. who said gene does or does not care about readership?
you are so full of assumptions & expectations.
gene did not try to push his bullshit ideology on you. he simply constructed a statue of what he feels.
you on the other hand, have 14 assholes and a belly bulging with laxative.
why are you being uptight about this.
seriously.
@darby,
if everything has been taught does real true or false exist?
@darby,
if everything has been taught does real true or false exist?
@jereme, im not sure what that means.
@jereme, im not sure what that means.
i dont think real true and false exists. you can tear it apart bit by bit philosophically. but its stable enough for my purposes.
i dont think real true and false exists. you can tear it apart bit by bit philosophically. but its stable enough for my purposes.
Is this post satire?
Is this post satire?
The early issues of Typo were male-dominated. We received mostly submissions from men. When the magazine got better, we got more quality submissions from women. I am pretty sure we publish more women now. I think there are about an equal number of decent male and female poets out there today but many more bad male poets. Also, among the decent poets out there, there are more really excellent women poets and almost all of the most interesting poets are women. But then you have guys like Keith Newton, Patrick Morrissey, John Coletti, and Kevin Holden, but those guys are sort of girlie.
The early issues of Typo were male-dominated. We received mostly submissions from men. When the magazine got better, we got more quality submissions from women. I am pretty sure we publish more women now. I think there are about an equal number of decent male and female poets out there today but many more bad male poets. Also, among the decent poets out there, there are more really excellent women poets and almost all of the most interesting poets are women. But then you have guys like Keith Newton, Patrick Morrissey, John Coletti, and Kevin Holden, but those guys are sort of girlie.
I mean aesthetically, mostly.
I mean aesthetically, mostly.
waiter, there’s a fly on my comment
waiter, there’s a fly on my comment
lol. good one, reynard.
lol. good one, reynard.
I say that because it seems like the modern materialist credo taken to its annoying extreme. I mean—
“Even if your dick were to be traded for my dick, the difference would be chasmic by virtue of the trade between two persons. You would no longer be the body you are, nor I the person I am.”
—do you honestly believe that? It seems to you that the words ‘body’ and ‘person’ are interchangeable, which to me is indefensible. I agree with you that “the specificity of a body in time and space means something,” but what you take that something to mean seems overblown and ridiculous.
I say that because it seems like the modern materialist credo taken to its annoying extreme. I mean—
“Even if your dick were to be traded for my dick, the difference would be chasmic by virtue of the trade between two persons. You would no longer be the body you are, nor I the person I am.”
—do you honestly believe that? It seems to you that the words ‘body’ and ‘person’ are interchangeable, which to me is indefensible. I agree with you that “the specificity of a body in time and space means something,” but what you take that something to mean seems overblown and ridiculous.
In actual fact, I think my remarks are almost the exact opposite of materialist. They’re realist, I think, in the philosophical meaning of that word, but they are, if anything, not hung up on material as much as matter, which is a conceptualist, theoretical entity. The point about trading dicks is that it, too, would be a gender trade, that gender does not just enter when the question of women becomes involved. Body and person are not interchangeable to me in the above as you’ll note by consistent references to the notion of the body I am in or the person that is in the body of me. What is overblown and ridiculous to me is how experimentalist communities still, after all this time, think that a thing like consideration of gender, race, sex, class, not to even mention able-bodiedness, is the thought police of creativity. How long will ‘identity’ politics go on being the straw man for everyone’s inflated egoist sense of their own creative independence from everything real? The resistance to this thinking of imagination (and, conversely, the resistance to the amping of imagination through this type of thinking) is not against the status quo, like it likes to pretend. It is the status quo. And its efforts to claim the cutting edge of innovation are just sort of exhausting actually. Exhausting and old.
In actual fact, I think my remarks are almost the exact opposite of materialist. They’re realist, I think, in the philosophical meaning of that word, but they are, if anything, not hung up on material as much as matter, which is a conceptualist, theoretical entity. The point about trading dicks is that it, too, would be a gender trade, that gender does not just enter when the question of women becomes involved. Body and person are not interchangeable to me in the above as you’ll note by consistent references to the notion of the body I am in or the person that is in the body of me. What is overblown and ridiculous to me is how experimentalist communities still, after all this time, think that a thing like consideration of gender, race, sex, class, not to even mention able-bodiedness, is the thought police of creativity. How long will ‘identity’ politics go on being the straw man for everyone’s inflated egoist sense of their own creative independence from everything real? The resistance to this thinking of imagination (and, conversely, the resistance to the amping of imagination through this type of thinking) is not against the status quo, like it likes to pretend. It is the status quo. And its efforts to claim the cutting edge of innovation are just sort of exhausting actually. Exhausting and old.
what the heck is wac
what is everyone talking about
what the heck is wac
what is everyone talking about
How is your position realist in the philosophical sense?
I think you’re inventing your own strawmen. I haven’t argued that a consideration of gender/race/sex/class/able-bodiedness would be the thought police of creativity, whatever that would mean.
Honestly, your past two posts seem highly confused to me. I’ve read both of them over many times now, and almost every other sentence makes no sense at all. I’m willing to discuss this, but I’m gonna need more to work with than monsters like this: “People are not people no matter how many times the word is repeated, or the bodies, no more than bodies are only human things, or concepts and not objects, as if concepts were not objects.”
How is your position realist in the philosophical sense?
I think you’re inventing your own strawmen. I haven’t argued that a consideration of gender/race/sex/class/able-bodiedness would be the thought police of creativity, whatever that would mean.
Honestly, your past two posts seem highly confused to me. I’ve read both of them over many times now, and almost every other sentence makes no sense at all. I’m willing to discuss this, but I’m gonna need more to work with than monsters like this: “People are not people no matter how many times the word is repeated, or the bodies, no more than bodies are only human things, or concepts and not objects, as if concepts were not objects.”
To the first part, philosophical realism = the contention that reality exists independently of observation. That underlies everything I’ve said above. To the second, you say that you haven’t argued such a thing and yet it isnt really a matter of argument, as you really haven’t argued much of anything at all across this entire comment thread, just aligned yourself in an amorphous, and mostly snide way, with the commenting ‘atmosphere’ of the group here who hold in their respective ways to Blake’s overarching statement above: “language over body”. So I don’t think it’s an unreasonable inference. To the third part, every word in that sentence is meant and every phrase in that sentence makes sense. If it seems highly confused to you, then it’s probably because you’re confused. The language is technical but it isn’t opaque. It’s oblique, for sure, at points, but it says what it means. So I’m not going to be able to give you anything other to work with than more monsters, I’m afraid. Which, as it turns out, is okay anyway for, although you say you’re willing to discuss, I get the clear and distinct impression from your manner not just toward me but toward everyone on this post so far that you are not willing to discuss anything really, so much as swoop in and leave some snarky nothing or else lead a person down a primrose path of snarky asides and faux-curious critiques to which that person then feels compelled to respond until the thread stretches on forever with nothing exchanged except my head for a headache. Normally my anxiety that I am not being articulate enough would kick in and I probably would wade into that quagmire but no, I’m not playing that game today, sorry. If you’re sincere about trying to understand what I’m saying, save the thread and re-read them over time. But I honestly doubt the issue matters that much to you, which is probably my point.
To the first part, philosophical realism = the contention that reality exists independently of observation. That underlies everything I’ve said above. To the second, you say that you haven’t argued such a thing and yet it isnt really a matter of argument, as you really haven’t argued much of anything at all across this entire comment thread, just aligned yourself in an amorphous, and mostly snide way, with the commenting ‘atmosphere’ of the group here who hold in their respective ways to Blake’s overarching statement above: “language over body”. So I don’t think it’s an unreasonable inference. To the third part, every word in that sentence is meant and every phrase in that sentence makes sense. If it seems highly confused to you, then it’s probably because you’re confused. The language is technical but it isn’t opaque. It’s oblique, for sure, at points, but it says what it means. So I’m not going to be able to give you anything other to work with than more monsters, I’m afraid. Which, as it turns out, is okay anyway for, although you say you’re willing to discuss, I get the clear and distinct impression from your manner not just toward me but toward everyone on this post so far that you are not willing to discuss anything really, so much as swoop in and leave some snarky nothing or else lead a person down a primrose path of snarky asides and faux-curious critiques to which that person then feels compelled to respond until the thread stretches on forever with nothing exchanged except my head for a headache. Normally my anxiety that I am not being articulate enough would kick in and I probably would wade into that quagmire but no, I’m not playing that game today, sorry. If you’re sincere about trying to understand what I’m saying, save the thread and re-read them over time. But I honestly doubt the issue matters that much to you, which is probably my point.
Yeah, that’s the sense I thought you meant too. It’s still not clear to me how that underlies everything you’ve said in this chain of comments, nor is it clear to me how realism is even relevant to this discussion.
I guess you’re free to infer whatever you want, but I was sincere in my efforts to parse your argument. If you’re going to stubbornly insist that your sentences are 0% opaque, then I guess we can’t move on. And FWIW, I find Blake’s “language over body” stuff generally mystifying, and I certainly would not align myself with it. It seems to me to suggest that the evaluation of literature is nothing more than a detached game of superficial linguistic analysis (i.e. the directionless hunt for beautiful words or phrases), which of course I would protest against.
And touche on the snark, I suppose. I’ll admit that it’s not nice/polite, but when confronted with such overbearing ideological cynicism, it’s sometimes the only response.
And actually this issue matters a lot to me. I wouldn’t have reread your posts at least 20x by now if I didn’t. I am utterly sincere in being confused by them, and this discussion (whether it’s my fault or yours) can’t continue unless you’re willing to clarify and expound.
Yeah, that’s the sense I thought you meant too. It’s still not clear to me how that underlies everything you’ve said in this chain of comments, nor is it clear to me how realism is even relevant to this discussion.
I guess you’re free to infer whatever you want, but I was sincere in my efforts to parse your argument. If you’re going to stubbornly insist that your sentences are 0% opaque, then I guess we can’t move on. And FWIW, I find Blake’s “language over body” stuff generally mystifying, and I certainly would not align myself with it. It seems to me to suggest that the evaluation of literature is nothing more than a detached game of superficial linguistic analysis (i.e. the directionless hunt for beautiful words or phrases), which of course I would protest against.
And touche on the snark, I suppose. I’ll admit that it’s not nice/polite, but when confronted with such overbearing ideological cynicism, it’s sometimes the only response.
And actually this issue matters a lot to me. I wouldn’t have reread your posts at least 20x by now if I didn’t. I am utterly sincere in being confused by them, and this discussion (whether it’s my fault or yours) can’t continue unless you’re willing to clarify and expound.
Shouldn’t we? I mean, we’ve definitely too much WHITE DICK in the game, right?
Shouldn’t we? I mean, we’ve definitely too much WHITE DICK in the game, right?
Hey Jordan, not sure what you mean man. More please? (And what is it that I’ve missed a good butt-kicking on?? Though for what it’s worth most college profs avoid stepping on anyone’s toes anymore, so more than likely you’re right.)
Hey Jordan, not sure what you mean man. More please? (And what is it that I’ve missed a good butt-kicking on?? Though for what it’s worth most college profs avoid stepping on anyone’s toes anymore, so more than likely you’re right.)
a half-truth in the sense that it’s diverse in one way, but not diverse in another.
some magazines go an entire year between issues. so what?
a half-truth in the sense that it’s diverse in one way, but not diverse in another.
some magazines go an entire year between issues. so what?
Always thought it meant WOMEN’S ARMY CORPS myself!
my self esteem is terrible, for many reasons, but i fail to see how that ties in here. seems like a non sequitur on your part. explain?
Always thought it meant WOMEN’S ARMY CORPS myself!
my self esteem is terrible, for many reasons, but i fail to see how that ties in here. seems like a non sequitur on your part. explain?
Yes. I think that’s right.I guess I can understand the temptation to not want to cope with institutional bias. Not to want to own the problem because that problem feels so diffuse and nobody wants to recognize themselves in it.
Yes. I think that’s right.I guess I can understand the temptation to not want to cope with institutional bias. Not to want to own the problem because that problem feels so diffuse and nobody wants to recognize themselves in it.
I might regret this but I’ll take your word on your sincerity. In fact, I’m sorry if I’ve been too gruff too quickly, I should have read a little closer, and not been so quick to put my troll-guard up. This will probably be my last comment, though, because I’m kind of worn out. Anyhow, I’ll stick to my insistence that the above isn’t opaque but it does have a lot inferentially weaved into it. So let me see if I can parse it more systematically.
In part, the reason that I’d say all I’ve said is philosophically realist is that it insists that the issues of ‘identity’ exist independently of one’s resolution to place language over them. They are not a matter of observation alone and so subject to non-contemplation, even when one decides not to factor them in. They are being thought by the fact they exist. Aesthetics cannot just displace the realities that localise invention at any particular spatiotemporal point. But this localisation, and how it crosses over with wider, deeper philosophical and social issues of being, doesn’t trump aesthetics. Because aesthetics are not only a matter of art. Aesthetic judgments are formed by the aesthetical formation of an aesthetical judgment (with each ‘order’ of aesthetics in that sentence intended as another complicating level, although they shouldn’t be thought of as always ascending one another in any set hierarchy: that is where context comes in). This is the aesthetics of aesthetics I mentioned above. Taking the aesthetics of aesthetics into account does not void transcendence in literature, which seems to be a concern of yours, because those coordinates are aesthetic matters too. Crude materialism would say something like your sex organs determine that you can only write x way, never y way. I don’t agree with that at all. But what I especially disagree with is that this is the ‘counterargument’ that has been put forward by people who are attentive to the matters of the body. That’s the straw man of identity politics that I mentioned. If anything, actually, mainstream science today is obsessed with finding the gene-origin of everything, not the art-academic group who are concerned with representativity and who are accused all the time of this crime. This cohort bank their claims for representation on the notion that a discovery of the bodily origin of ‘male’ writing is entirely ideological. They insist bodies matter in spite of original cause.
So to say that the matters of the body are not something you can place language ‘over’, to say that language cannot escape the realities it refuses to observe, is not the same thing as saying the body is what always ultimately matters when it comes to imagination. The matters of the body are its historical, experiential, conceptual and habitual compositional frames, rather than something like a political updating of the earth’s four elements. But if these are frames, meaning arbitrary in some fashion, they aren’t only ideological and can’t be wished away by the real person inside, or by some logic that there is some real person inside that is not simultaneously the real person inside the real body. The two things need to be held in the head at once. When Blake says people are people, it seems to allow everyone transport into the framework and fictions of everyone else but it actually also monopolises the mode of transport. For all this heady travel to take place, we all need to be ‘people’. The thing is that there are other transcendences (as well as other hells) which the specificity of the body and its meaning(s) in time and space predicate, and before which the specificity of the entangled autonomy of the self in the body and the body in the self and both of these in the space of the real and the imagined will not give way. The body is not the determinant of all that the imagination can do but nor is the imagination a wormhole out of reality into some corresponding shared realm of anti-reality. Wherever the body is, so is the subject, though the subject may not always know it, and the imagination is the subject and so the body goes there too, though the imagination might not know it. So it is that if I were to write a book from the perspective of a crippled African Muslim unwed mother, I am not relieved of what one would assume would be my interest – and what is surely my duty – to read the writings of actual crippled African Muslim unwed mothers or to consider the contexts in research of such a persona I’m assuming. And if I did not have that interest, then there is indeed something wrong with the fact I want to write from that perspective. I’ve put language over that body.
One of the reasons to read the work of different bodies and the individualities that are necessary to them to be bodies is to multiply the transcendental. But it’s also a matter of ethics. I said above that I have no issue with the We Are Champion issue being all male, but the angst in this post – and even in the initial post, where Amy objected, probably too hastily, to the all male line-up – is bigger than We Are Champion, I think: it’s the consistent, willful insistence of people who are much admired for their smarts and their skills here to elevate to the level of a principle the proclamation that the matters of the me I am in are irrelevant to the artistic practice that has true integrity. It takes a certain type of body/self basically to be able to subscribe to that as a principle, to make that value judgment, and it takes a certain willful blindness (the glory hole of ‘blind submissions’, thanks to reynard) to think that this principle is either (a) a dictum that can be equally accessed by everyone so we can all place language over the body (as though there were no such thing, for instance, as body language, which speaks to us) or that the principle is (b) a personal decision so I can go my way and you can go yours, which is all about people assigning merely discursive importance to arbitrary ‘nodes’ that have no unlevel impact on their existence. Blake tends to move backward and forward between proclaiming language over body as a principle and then saying it’s his own thing so let him be but to me, in either direction, whether personal credo or public provocation, the idea wants to de-realize transcendence, which is to say, it wants to make transcendence a thing that has nothing to do with the true traumatic complications of a reality that exist independently of us. It wants to make the world its oyster. And I don’t have that body or self so it follows that I am not a person under Blake’s universalism, although Blake would insist that I am. But I’m not, precisely because he would insist that I am. I cannot be a person under a rubric that mandates that I must be people at the expense of the selved body or the emplaced self. I can’t be. I don’t meet the criteria, I’m too much a body, as it were. And so, I’ll become that most annihilating of things: a failed person. Blake, of course, goes out of his way not to make people feel like failed persons. And I think this is largely due to the fact he is attentive to their realities in spite of his insistence they’re only second fiddle to language. So, to bring this back around to that monster sentence: People are not people no matter how many times the word is repeated. Nor are their bodies, no more how many times those are repeated in people. No more than bodies are only human things, for bodies can be animal, mineral, animate, non-animate, concrete and abstract. They can be concepts. Which is why people are not people no more than concepts are not objects. There are bodies of languages. And bodies of transcendence. There are people within them. Consider them all.
I might regret this but I’ll take your word on your sincerity. In fact, I’m sorry if I’ve been too gruff too quickly, I should have read a little closer, and not been so quick to put my troll-guard up. This will probably be my last comment, though, because I’m kind of worn out. Anyhow, I’ll stick to my insistence that the above isn’t opaque but it does have a lot inferentially weaved into it. So let me see if I can parse it more systematically.
In part, the reason that I’d say all I’ve said is philosophically realist is that it insists that the issues of ‘identity’ exist independently of one’s resolution to place language over them. They are not a matter of observation alone and so subject to non-contemplation, even when one decides not to factor them in. They are being thought by the fact they exist. Aesthetics cannot just displace the realities that localise invention at any particular spatiotemporal point. But this localisation, and how it crosses over with wider, deeper philosophical and social issues of being, doesn’t trump aesthetics. Because aesthetics are not only a matter of art. Aesthetic judgments are formed by the aesthetical formation of an aesthetical judgment (with each ‘order’ of aesthetics in that sentence intended as another complicating level, although they shouldn’t be thought of as always ascending one another in any set hierarchy: that is where context comes in). This is the aesthetics of aesthetics I mentioned above. Taking the aesthetics of aesthetics into account does not void transcendence in literature, which seems to be a concern of yours, because those coordinates are aesthetic matters too. Crude materialism would say something like your sex organs determine that you can only write x way, never y way. I don’t agree with that at all. But what I especially disagree with is that this is the ‘counterargument’ that has been put forward by people who are attentive to the matters of the body. That’s the straw man of identity politics that I mentioned. If anything, actually, mainstream science today is obsessed with finding the gene-origin of everything, not the art-academic group who are concerned with representativity and who are accused all the time of this crime. This cohort bank their claims for representation on the notion that a discovery of the bodily origin of ‘male’ writing is entirely ideological. They insist bodies matter in spite of original cause.
So to say that the matters of the body are not something you can place language ‘over’, to say that language cannot escape the realities it refuses to observe, is not the same thing as saying the body is what always ultimately matters when it comes to imagination. The matters of the body are its historical, experiential, conceptual and habitual compositional frames, rather than something like a political updating of the earth’s four elements. But if these are frames, meaning arbitrary in some fashion, they aren’t only ideological and can’t be wished away by the real person inside, or by some logic that there is some real person inside that is not simultaneously the real person inside the real body. The two things need to be held in the head at once. When Blake says people are people, it seems to allow everyone transport into the framework and fictions of everyone else but it actually also monopolises the mode of transport. For all this heady travel to take place, we all need to be ‘people’. The thing is that there are other transcendences (as well as other hells) which the specificity of the body and its meaning(s) in time and space predicate, and before which the specificity of the entangled autonomy of the self in the body and the body in the self and both of these in the space of the real and the imagined will not give way. The body is not the determinant of all that the imagination can do but nor is the imagination a wormhole out of reality into some corresponding shared realm of anti-reality. Wherever the body is, so is the subject, though the subject may not always know it, and the imagination is the subject and so the body goes there too, though the imagination might not know it. So it is that if I were to write a book from the perspective of a crippled African Muslim unwed mother, I am not relieved of what one would assume would be my interest – and what is surely my duty – to read the writings of actual crippled African Muslim unwed mothers or to consider the contexts in research of such a persona I’m assuming. And if I did not have that interest, then there is indeed something wrong with the fact I want to write from that perspective. I’ve put language over that body.
One of the reasons to read the work of different bodies and the individualities that are necessary to them to be bodies is to multiply the transcendental. But it’s also a matter of ethics. I said above that I have no issue with the We Are Champion issue being all male, but the angst in this post – and even in the initial post, where Amy objected, probably too hastily, to the all male line-up – is bigger than We Are Champion, I think: it’s the consistent, willful insistence of people who are much admired for their smarts and their skills here to elevate to the level of a principle the proclamation that the matters of the me I am in are irrelevant to the artistic practice that has true integrity. It takes a certain type of body/self basically to be able to subscribe to that as a principle, to make that value judgment, and it takes a certain willful blindness (the glory hole of ‘blind submissions’, thanks to reynard) to think that this principle is either (a) a dictum that can be equally accessed by everyone so we can all place language over the body (as though there were no such thing, for instance, as body language, which speaks to us) or that the principle is (b) a personal decision so I can go my way and you can go yours, which is all about people assigning merely discursive importance to arbitrary ‘nodes’ that have no unlevel impact on their existence. Blake tends to move backward and forward between proclaiming language over body as a principle and then saying it’s his own thing so let him be but to me, in either direction, whether personal credo or public provocation, the idea wants to de-realize transcendence, which is to say, it wants to make transcendence a thing that has nothing to do with the true traumatic complications of a reality that exist independently of us. It wants to make the world its oyster. And I don’t have that body or self so it follows that I am not a person under Blake’s universalism, although Blake would insist that I am. But I’m not, precisely because he would insist that I am. I cannot be a person under a rubric that mandates that I must be people at the expense of the selved body or the emplaced self. I can’t be. I don’t meet the criteria, I’m too much a body, as it were. And so, I’ll become that most annihilating of things: a failed person. Blake, of course, goes out of his way not to make people feel like failed persons. And I think this is largely due to the fact he is attentive to their realities in spite of his insistence they’re only second fiddle to language. So, to bring this back around to that monster sentence: People are not people no matter how many times the word is repeated. Nor are their bodies, no more how many times those are repeated in people. No more than bodies are only human things, for bodies can be animal, mineral, animate, non-animate, concrete and abstract. They can be concepts. Which is why people are not people no more than concepts are not objects. There are bodies of languages. And bodies of transcendence. There are people within them. Consider them all.
I liked the quotes around “just saying.”
I liked the quotes around “just saying.”
If I like the idea of Kristina Born with a dick, does that make me sexist?
If I like the idea of Kristina Born with a dick, does that make me sexist?
in my opinion, it makes you incorrigible, haha
in my opinion, it makes you incorrigible, haha
Obviously this concern on equality has sparked quite debate. I say it leaves you with few options:
Overplay it and remove the authors names from the works completely, only to be replaced with actual pictures of each one’s genitals. (This of course being the best option)
Or
Use works solely from authors with sexually ambiguous names.
Or
Side step the issue completely and create the first intersexed/transgenerded lit mag. Only stories from genetic XY males with female external genitals and genetic XX females with male external genitals. (Revolutionary?)
Obviously this concern on equality has sparked quite debate. I say it leaves you with few options:
Overplay it and remove the authors names from the works completely, only to be replaced with actual pictures of each one’s genitals. (This of course being the best option)
Or
Use works solely from authors with sexually ambiguous names.
Or
Side step the issue completely and create the first intersexed/transgenerded lit mag. Only stories from genetic XY males with female external genitals and genetic XX females with male external genitals. (Revolutionary?)
Hmmm. Parts of this post make me think that we simply have different vocabularies for describing the same thing, and that in truth we don’t disagree by much. Not sure about that though.
I’ve got questions, questions. I certainly understand if you’re worn out and wish not to respond. I’ll post the Qs anyhow in case someone of similar intellectual background wants to jump in and help me out.
—When you say ‘place language over,’ are you imply prioritization, or a physical metaphor? (ie lopping one thing on top another) Because so far I have read this discussion as one of priority. (What do we value first: diversity of selection, quality of craftsmanship, etc etc?) I just read through the entire discussion leading up to your first long post, and as far as I could tell nobody denied the existence of issues of identity—unless maybe you’re taking Blake’s “people people people” thing that way, although in that case I still think it was an issue of priority: he’s valuing general “universal” human experience over the myriad particularities of specific identity. But either way, I still don’t see how realism applies to the discussion—except, perhaps, for those who would abandon all value judgments as wholly subjective, one person of which I snarked at earlier. That’s not you though, so. . .
—This sentence: “Aesthetics cannot just displace the realities that localise invention at any particular spatiotemporal point.” It makes me suspect that we essentially agree, but it’s so vague that I feel we have to hash it out some. When you say this, do you mean that grand general proclamations of what constitutes Beautiful Literature cannot absolve one of attending to the artistic idiosyncrasies of any one artwork? Because if so, I wholly agree (and this is part of why I’m wary of the ‘language over body’ stuff). Encountering a new artwork is very much like encountering a new person, or body: to overlook its inherent particularities of character (ie ethos) both does violence to the individual entity (you reduce it to a nameless shapeless cog in a larger machine), but it also deprives you of a very valuable kind of intimacy. If I cannot “see” a piece of writing because of my own generalized expectations of art, I have missed a significant opportunity to grow and develop. I mean, this is part of why I think thoughtful aesthetic evaluation is so crucial: it requires a severe agility and fertility of mind, because to judge any given artwork by any criteria other than those which it demands of you is to not judge it at all. (Which in turn prepares you for interacting with others at a truly human level, allowing you to—as much as you can—communicate with real infinitely layered humans, and not the stale preconceived “idea of other people” you harbor inside.)
However, if you mean something else, then please let’s hash it out.
—I agree that aesthetics is not solely a matter of art. (It actually thrills me to read that sentence of yours.) However, I’m pretty much bewildered as to what exactly you mean by “aesthetical formation of aesthetic judgement.” Or actually, maybe I’m actually grooving with you a little on this. I sense that you are saying we should distinguish between kinds of aesthetic judgement. (In response to which statement I would almost pee myself in joy.) Is this what you mean? That the ideal aesthetic judgement is a beautiful one? Because if so I am so down for that: distinguishing between crude aesthetic judgement (“hur hur, that story was badass!”) and thoughtful, elegant, generous aesthetic judgement is basically one of my huge obsessions. How can we do it, when should we do it? etc.
But then of course, as I think you’re suggesting, elegant aesthetic judgements would not limit themselves to superficial evaluations of “what’s on the page,” as if the artwork were solely an interaction with letters and word instead of a genuine interaction with another human being. That “fistfucking rules” poem from a few days ago could probably serve as a nice example here. That poem was defending by many as exhibiting a masterful command of the language, and while I don’t necessarily agree with that (his tropes rely too heavily on artificial shock imo), I would more than happily concede this point. However, others rightfully criticized the ethos evinced by the poem: one person questioned the apparent misogyny, and another claimed it devolved into mindless headbanging. Truly, the full evaluation of an artwork encompasses more than just the superficialities of language (energetic phrasing, avoidance of cliche) and delves deeply into what the language suggests about the individual behind the poem. In the case of that poem, it to me suggested things like “clearly this person is overfascinated by scat” and “unfortunately this poet is happy to sacrifice the more nuanced callings of his craft for cheap shock appeal” and “to some extent this poet is too undisciplined to reign in his linguistic energy when it begins to harm the poem.” . . . is any of this even in the ballpark of what you mean? Because under this model the question of who to admit into your journal would certainly involve questions of identity, and yet it is still a far cry from any kind of arbitrary quota-filling. (conceivable matters of identity that may arise: “this person, perhaps in some desperate thirst for fame or acknowledgment, has reduced the experience of aging into an unwilled cartoon: he is disloyal to his subject” or “aha! this poet at the very least values loyalty of subject equally to fame: his depiction of being an 80y/o man who is teased by young brats while mowing his lawn is generous and nuanced in ways that expand my own realm of experience”)
Whoo, okay, now I’m starting to get tired. It would be nice to know if I am at all on track here. If I am, I think I can jive to the rest of your post. Especially if in Blakes “people people” thing you suspect him of to some extent refusing to enter intimacy with the particularities of a work/person-as-embodied-in-the-work. I don’t think he’s arguing that, but I can see where you get it.
In fact, looking through the rest of your post, and if I’m at all on track with what you’re thinking, I think I agree with absolutely everything you’re saying here, and I am only further convinced that we have radically different vocabularies for talking about the same stuff (though I still think the realism thing is a boner). And for what it’s worth, this position—
or by some logic that there is some real person inside that is not simultaneously the real person inside the real body. The two things need to be held in the head at once.
—and the wonderfully nuanced position you go on to describe is basically what I’m trying to goad/provoke people into “snapping to” when I lay on the snark. You posit reality and imaginative anti-reality, and indeed in order to live or create beautifully one must have a keen awareness of both. An overfocus on either—confused solipsism or deranged materialism—is essentially the same error, and in my experience those who are wholly devoted to either need a certain amount of outright provocation before they will consider abandoning the position. (Because real argument with a committed solipsist/materialist is impossible.)
This entire discussion reminds me of that beautiful section of tractatus where Wittgenstein (I think correctly) conflates solipsism with realism:
“”Here we see that solipsism strictly carried out coincides with pure realism. The I in solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.”
I feel like there was one more thing I meant to say, but I lost it while petting the kitty. Nice conversing with you, David.
Hmmm. Parts of this post make me think that we simply have different vocabularies for describing the same thing, and that in truth we don’t disagree by much. Not sure about that though.
I’ve got questions, questions. I certainly understand if you’re worn out and wish not to respond. I’ll post the Qs anyhow in case someone of similar intellectual background wants to jump in and help me out.
—When you say ‘place language over,’ are you imply prioritization, or a physical metaphor? (ie lopping one thing on top another) Because so far I have read this discussion as one of priority. (What do we value first: diversity of selection, quality of craftsmanship, etc etc?) I just read through the entire discussion leading up to your first long post, and as far as I could tell nobody denied the existence of issues of identity—unless maybe you’re taking Blake’s “people people people” thing that way, although in that case I still think it was an issue of priority: he’s valuing general “universal” human experience over the myriad particularities of specific identity. But either way, I still don’t see how realism applies to the discussion—except, perhaps, for those who would abandon all value judgments as wholly subjective, one person of which I snarked at earlier. That’s not you though, so. . .
—This sentence: “Aesthetics cannot just displace the realities that localise invention at any particular spatiotemporal point.” It makes me suspect that we essentially agree, but it’s so vague that I feel we have to hash it out some. When you say this, do you mean that grand general proclamations of what constitutes Beautiful Literature cannot absolve one of attending to the artistic idiosyncrasies of any one artwork? Because if so, I wholly agree (and this is part of why I’m wary of the ‘language over body’ stuff). Encountering a new artwork is very much like encountering a new person, or body: to overlook its inherent particularities of character (ie ethos) both does violence to the individual entity (you reduce it to a nameless shapeless cog in a larger machine), but it also deprives you of a very valuable kind of intimacy. If I cannot “see” a piece of writing because of my own generalized expectations of art, I have missed a significant opportunity to grow and develop. I mean, this is part of why I think thoughtful aesthetic evaluation is so crucial: it requires a severe agility and fertility of mind, because to judge any given artwork by any criteria other than those which it demands of you is to not judge it at all. (Which in turn prepares you for interacting with others at a truly human level, allowing you to—as much as you can—communicate with real infinitely layered humans, and not the stale preconceived “idea of other people” you harbor inside.)
However, if you mean something else, then please let’s hash it out.
—I agree that aesthetics is not solely a matter of art. (It actually thrills me to read that sentence of yours.) However, I’m pretty much bewildered as to what exactly you mean by “aesthetical formation of aesthetic judgement.” Or actually, maybe I’m actually grooving with you a little on this. I sense that you are saying we should distinguish between kinds of aesthetic judgement. (In response to which statement I would almost pee myself in joy.) Is this what you mean? That the ideal aesthetic judgement is a beautiful one? Because if so I am so down for that: distinguishing between crude aesthetic judgement (“hur hur, that story was badass!”) and thoughtful, elegant, generous aesthetic judgement is basically one of my huge obsessions. How can we do it, when should we do it? etc.
But then of course, as I think you’re suggesting, elegant aesthetic judgements would not limit themselves to superficial evaluations of “what’s on the page,” as if the artwork were solely an interaction with letters and word instead of a genuine interaction with another human being. That “fistfucking rules” poem from a few days ago could probably serve as a nice example here. That poem was defending by many as exhibiting a masterful command of the language, and while I don’t necessarily agree with that (his tropes rely too heavily on artificial shock imo), I would more than happily concede this point. However, others rightfully criticized the ethos evinced by the poem: one person questioned the apparent misogyny, and another claimed it devolved into mindless headbanging. Truly, the full evaluation of an artwork encompasses more than just the superficialities of language (energetic phrasing, avoidance of cliche) and delves deeply into what the language suggests about the individual behind the poem. In the case of that poem, it to me suggested things like “clearly this person is overfascinated by scat” and “unfortunately this poet is happy to sacrifice the more nuanced callings of his craft for cheap shock appeal” and “to some extent this poet is too undisciplined to reign in his linguistic energy when it begins to harm the poem.” . . . is any of this even in the ballpark of what you mean? Because under this model the question of who to admit into your journal would certainly involve questions of identity, and yet it is still a far cry from any kind of arbitrary quota-filling. (conceivable matters of identity that may arise: “this person, perhaps in some desperate thirst for fame or acknowledgment, has reduced the experience of aging into an unwilled cartoon: he is disloyal to his subject” or “aha! this poet at the very least values loyalty of subject equally to fame: his depiction of being an 80y/o man who is teased by young brats while mowing his lawn is generous and nuanced in ways that expand my own realm of experience”)
Whoo, okay, now I’m starting to get tired. It would be nice to know if I am at all on track here. If I am, I think I can jive to the rest of your post. Especially if in Blakes “people people” thing you suspect him of to some extent refusing to enter intimacy with the particularities of a work/person-as-embodied-in-the-work. I don’t think he’s arguing that, but I can see where you get it.
In fact, looking through the rest of your post, and if I’m at all on track with what you’re thinking, I think I agree with absolutely everything you’re saying here, and I am only further convinced that we have radically different vocabularies for talking about the same stuff (though I still think the realism thing is a boner). And for what it’s worth, this position—
or by some logic that there is some real person inside that is not simultaneously the real person inside the real body. The two things need to be held in the head at once.
—and the wonderfully nuanced position you go on to describe is basically what I’m trying to goad/provoke people into “snapping to” when I lay on the snark. You posit reality and imaginative anti-reality, and indeed in order to live or create beautifully one must have a keen awareness of both. An overfocus on either—confused solipsism or deranged materialism—is essentially the same error, and in my experience those who are wholly devoted to either need a certain amount of outright provocation before they will consider abandoning the position. (Because real argument with a committed solipsist/materialist is impossible.)
This entire discussion reminds me of that beautiful section of tractatus where Wittgenstein (I think correctly) conflates solipsism with realism:
“”Here we see that solipsism strictly carried out coincides with pure realism. The I in solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.”
I feel like there was one more thing I meant to say, but I lost it while petting the kitty. Nice conversing with you, David.
quick amendment: I think the realism thing was a boner in that I’m not convinced anyone was denying the existence of issues of identity. When you later went on to describe the that which “must be held in the head at the same time,” and to the extent that realism applies there I felt like you were spot-on. It seems to me that you are (correctly) arguing for a more nuanced more intimate relation with these questions of identity, and in retrospect I guess I can certainly see how a widespread refusal of this would look like denying-of-existence. So…. maybe not quite as much a boner as thought, hmmmm….
quick amendment: I think the realism thing was a boner in that I’m not convinced anyone was denying the existence of issues of identity. When you later went on to describe the that which “must be held in the head at the same time,” and to the extent that realism applies there I felt like you were spot-on. It seems to me that you are (correctly) arguing for a more nuanced more intimate relation with these questions of identity, and in retrospect I guess I can certainly see how a widespread refusal of this would look like denying-of-existence. So…. maybe not quite as much a boner as thought, hmmmm….
If you like Kristina Born with a dick, it means you’re thinking outside the box.
If you like Kristina Born with a dick, it means you’re thinking outside the box.
I don’t count.
I don’t count.
@ Matt: So to the point of the discussion, on a practical level, why did this shift occur? Did you as an editor solicit work from more women? Was your aesthetic from TYPO–despite initially being male dominated–have voices that were–I don’t know how to phrase this–less “male”? Did you have other extraneous factors going on that made more women submit? Or did it just “happen” over time? For the
@ Matt: So to the point of the discussion, on a practical level, why did this shift occur? Did you as an editor solicit work from more women? Was your aesthetic from TYPO–despite initially being male dominated–have voices that were–I don’t know how to phrase this–less “male”? Did you have other extraneous factors going on that made more women submit? Or did it just “happen” over time? For the
never – just publish what blows my socks off – i don’t care if you’re a man/woman/inbetween, if you’re straight/gay/inbetween, if you’re black/white/brown/yellow/inbetween, or 18/24/35/42/68/moreorless years old
just kill it
never – just publish what blows my socks off – i don’t care if you’re a man/woman/inbetween, if you’re straight/gay/inbetween, if you’re black/white/brown/yellow/inbetween, or 18/24/35/42/68/moreorless years old
just kill it
augh
sorry
i hate comments like this
but i am going to leave it anyway
because with duchamp it’s a pet peeve
like a serious one
it is just “duchamp”
not “duchamps” there is only one, and his name is not like georges, it is french, but i don’t think the french ever arbitrarily put s’s after consonants? actually now i am interested, is this true?
augh
sorry
i hate comments like this
but i am going to leave it anyway
because with duchamp it’s a pet peeve
like a serious one
it is just “duchamp”
not “duchamps” there is only one, and his name is not like georges, it is french, but i don’t think the french ever arbitrarily put s’s after consonants? actually now i am interested, is this true?
Also, when I said I’m personally not upset with editors who publish predominantly males what I meant was that I don’t feel any negativity toward that INDIVIDUAL. But I am upset–in a very personal way–about institutional sexism & I want those who, as Becca beautifully pointed out, have the privilege of not caring to begin to care. To try to care.
Also, when I said I’m personally not upset with editors who publish predominantly males what I meant was that I don’t feel any negativity toward that INDIVIDUAL. But I am upset–in a very personal way–about institutional sexism & I want those who, as Becca beautifully pointed out, have the privilege of not caring to begin to care. To try to care.
[…] Young weighs in off-site on yesterday’s gender boink. “Why do you need to have that stupid haircut to maintain civil order? You […]
i admit to doing it a little, but it always backfires…… in fall/winter i was feeling sort of pleased about the relative number of stories by women: it was just about 2 out of 3…. right now, tho, the queue’s gone the other way: about two men for every woman…. i should be displeased? It’s just, what u like u like….
i admit to doing it a little, but it always backfires…… in fall/winter i was feeling sort of pleased about the relative number of stories by women: it was just about 2 out of 3…. right now, tho, the queue’s gone the other way: about two men for every woman…. i should be displeased? It’s just, what u like u like….
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/review/CR_532_Spahr_Young.pdf
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/review/CR_532_Spahr_Young.pdf
i just published the first issue of corium and have to agree with the editors here who rely on quality of writing when deciding what to publish. seriously — you’re going to pass up what you consider the best stuff because you have too many stories by writers who possess the same genitalia? frankly, i’m surprised that this topic has generated so much controversy. Good writing = good journal = satisfied readers who will read future issues.
writers choose where to submit. unless a journal is specifically limited to those of one gender, i’ll submit if i like it; i’ll likewise accept the best work, regardless. yes, i hoped for a mix approaching equality, and that’s what we got. if it weren’t, we’d have published a gender-skewed issue of awesome writing and that’s how we’ll continue to operate. call me naive. call me a liar. call me sexist/racist/ethnically-biased (as i feel the same about race and ethnicity). just don’t send me crap.
i just published the first issue of corium and have to agree with the editors here who rely on quality of writing when deciding what to publish. seriously — you’re going to pass up what you consider the best stuff because you have too many stories by writers who possess the same genitalia? frankly, i’m surprised that this topic has generated so much controversy. Good writing = good journal = satisfied readers who will read future issues.
writers choose where to submit. unless a journal is specifically limited to those of one gender, i’ll submit if i like it; i’ll likewise accept the best work, regardless. yes, i hoped for a mix approaching equality, and that’s what we got. if it weren’t, we’d have published a gender-skewed issue of awesome writing and that’s how we’ll continue to operate. call me naive. call me a liar. call me sexist/racist/ethnically-biased (as i feel the same about race and ethnicity). just don’t send me crap.
@ Joseph: chicks just started sending us poems. I have heard the theory that women are more selective about what they send. We didn’t go out and actively solicit or accept more women. I have always accepted women into my life and preferred them in general.
@ Joseph: chicks just started sending us poems. I have heard the theory that women are more selective about what they send. We didn’t go out and actively solicit or accept more women. I have always accepted women into my life and preferred them in general.
[…] issue two of “We Are Champion, which is an all-male issue. When criticized, Butler responded pretty dismissively, which spawned an epic comment thread, complete with some clueless people not getting an obviously […]
Yes to the first two questions.
Yes to the first two questions.
Diversity in itself can be an aesthetic, a poetics. It is mine.
It’s weird to see the same arguments played out again here.
I think the default position with dominant groups is to like the familiar, the very familiar.
Diversity in itself can be an aesthetic, a poetics. It is mine.
It’s weird to see the same arguments played out again here.
I think the default position with dominant groups is to like the familiar, the very familiar.
But not undominant groups? I think all groups like the familiar.
But not undominant groups? I think all groups like the familiar.