Uncategorized
Maybe We’re Not Doing It Wrong
Every single writer and editor these days has some idea or theory about how to change publishing or save publishing because, haven’t you heard? Print is dying and people aren’t reading and the sky is falling and the literary world is coming to an end.
Criticism is leveled against big publishing and independent publishing and micropublishing and often times, that criticism is delivered with the rather self-righteous sentiment that everyone is doing it wrong. Often times, it seems that publishers spend more time detailing how they are innovating or how they will innovate rather than letting their actions speak for themselves. Some days, we’re talking about publishing more than putting out great books and magazines and just doing the work of publishing.
Two recent blog posts got me thinking about all this.
First, at the ZYZZVA blog, Howard Junker wrote an awesome post about the McSweeney’s Panorama issue. I don’t necessarily agree with everything Junker says but I really appreciate that he’s taking a critical stance instead of simply fawning all over the Panorama issue because it was published by McSweeney’s. The Panorama issue is an interesting but flawed endeavor. The issue is by no means a salvation, a notion which may not have been actively encouraged by McSweeney’s but wasn’t necessarily discouraged either.
The second interesting post is at Identity Theory in which editor Andrew Whitacre questions the relevance of the (small) print literary magazine in the digital era. Whitacre calls out many of the print journals on a list of journals he received from a professor in 2002 for not publishing content online, referring to them as “technologically stingy.”
Whitacre goes on to address out of date, poorly designed websites that are not taking full advantage of the technologies available in the digital era. He says that in this digital age, people want access to literature and that many of the more established print journals are not communicating as effectively with their readers as they could. He suggests that print journals don’t need to print a bound issue four times a year because the purposes those journals satisfied are now being met by online journals. Finally, Whitacre defines the mission of the literary journal in the digital age as such:
The mission of journals, as I now see it, is to contribute to and nurture conversation around good writing. To be experts without excluding. To offer literary context without condescension. To carve out space for literature.
Whitacre’s definition has a great deal of merit but it is rather shortsighted to imply that print magazines are not meeting nor cannot meet that mission as well. Furthermore, while he makes several interesting points, I find that there is, ironically enough, a certain level of condescension in his words. What he’s saying is that if you’re not online you’re doing it wrong as if being online has become the new standard by which merit should be judged. I am a big fan of the Internet and online publishing. I think it is very important and necessary. I have a Kindle. I read magazines via RSS feed. I’m involved with online magazines. I drink the Kool-Aid each and every day and it tastes great.
That said, I don’t think that online publishing is the only answer. There are days when I feel like screaming from the roof a tall building, “Online publishing is not synonymous with innovation.” A magazine does not need a website to be worthy or innovative or to contribute to literary culture. Just because we can use the Internet and the digital technologies afforded by Internet access does not mean we must. If Prairie Schooner doesn’t want to make their content available online that does not mean they are excluding people. It simply means that if you want to read what they’re publishing, you’re going to have to make the effort to go to a library or send in the order form and wait for the magazine to arrive in the mail. It’s like foreplay, which can be a good thing.
Additionally, as Whitacre himself points out, there are many magazines who are online but have very depressing, poorly designed and poorly conceived websites. At least the print journals with sad websites have the print artifact to look to but when online only magazines have sad websites, sometimes not even being maintained under their own domain name, they have nothing but the pixels on the screen. To that end, good online publishing isn’t just about being online but being online purposefully and at the very least, in aesthetically inoffensive ways.
Print magazines are no more exclusionary than online magazines. Just because content is available online does not make it accessible. I’ve said this before. I will say it again. To assert that online publishing affords access is to assume that online access is widely available. As it stands, online publishing is widely accessible to people who can afford to own a home computer and pay an Internet provider or to people who can make the time to go to a library and access the Internet there. To take the argument to an extreme, online publishing is accessible to people who have electricity. Here in the United States, we can take this for granted but such is not the case in many parts of the world. If we’re going to make statements about online publishing and access, we have to be very specific about whom that access is for. Online publishing is accessible to people who have a certain level of financial means, have disposable time, and an inclination to want to read literature. That audience seems pretty similar to the audience for print journals.
The Identity Theory blog post ends with a statement that print journals are inefficient, expensive and cater only to a small audience. All that may be true (printing a magazine is so damn expensive) but the statement still makes me profoundly sad. In my culture, as in many cultures, we have a great deal of respect for our elders. I consider literary magazines with that same regard. When I think about some of the older literary magazines who have their sad little websites, who refuse to be pulled into the 21st century, I am frustrated by their (perceived) lack of innovation. I want them to join us in the 21st century but I have an immense amount of respect for the work they have done, and the length of time across which they have done that work and done that work (for the most part) quite well. Contrary to popular belief, online years are not like dog years. When we can sustain an online magazine for 30 years (Mid-American Review), or 56 years (The Paris Review) or 190 years (The Yale Review), I think we can start to make grand pronouncements about the utility, or lack thereof, of print.
As a digital Kool-Aid drinker, I agree with much of Whitacre’s post. While I believe we should respect the ways in which more established print journals have made it possible for online magazines to flourish, I don’t believe we have to emulate them or that print publishing is better than online publishing. I do think we have to stop making these matters questions of either/or. One medium does not need to be sacrificed in order for the other to succeed–I often think of print and online publishing as two sides of the same coin. At the very least we should be more critical and less short-sighted in the ways in which we think and talk about publishing and matters of access. The good news, I think, is that all these conversations are about finding more effective ways of putting great writing into the world and getting that writing into the hands and hearts of as many people as possible. The very existence of these conversations is a strong indicator that we really should stop planning funerals.
I always get a strange feeling when anyone speaks so prescriptively or assertively about how their methods work and how that means they’re right for everyone. And, any business owner/manager who emulates someone else’s successful business practice without first really considering how it applies to their audience/market is being really naive.
I always get a strange feeling when anyone speaks so prescriptively or assertively about how their methods work and how that means they’re right for everyone. And, any business owner/manager who emulates someone else’s successful business practice without first really considering how it applies to their audience/market is being really naive.
Junker is a badass.
Junker is a badass.
I am going to posit a simple question maybe to start other questions; Do you think your work would be read more in print or online?
I used to (and still do) publish in print and never get any feedback. Online I get lots of feedback. I am not making an assumption that people are reading the text more online, but maybe because they read it online they also have the means to comment, email, contact me about the text?
What is the typical run of a print magazine?
What is the typical “eyeball” of an online story?
These are just questions.
Also, I used to think publishing online was less competitive. Not now. Standards are about the same, as in ranging from magazine to magazine, like print. But it IS easier to submit online, so will this change with the law of numbers?
No answer here, just wondering.
Lastly, I have some wonderful artifacts from the last year in my office, amazing print mags that are just art. Can online do this? My eyes, yes, but heft of words in my hand?
I am going to posit a simple question maybe to start other questions; Do you think your work would be read more in print or online?
I used to (and still do) publish in print and never get any feedback. Online I get lots of feedback. I am not making an assumption that people are reading the text more online, but maybe because they read it online they also have the means to comment, email, contact me about the text?
What is the typical run of a print magazine?
What is the typical “eyeball” of an online story?
These are just questions.
Also, I used to think publishing online was less competitive. Not now. Standards are about the same, as in ranging from magazine to magazine, like print. But it IS easier to submit online, so will this change with the law of numbers?
No answer here, just wondering.
Lastly, I have some wonderful artifacts from the last year in my office, amazing print mags that are just art. Can online do this? My eyes, yes, but heft of words in my hand?
sean, are you printing the broken plate? how many will/did you print? i think when i was on phoebe we did 1k an issue.
sean, are you printing the broken plate? how many will/did you print? i think when i was on phoebe we did 1k an issue.
These are great questions. I think my work is far more read online and because I’m not in creative writing professionally, I have no particular yen for my work to be in print more than online. I do love, however, receiving contributor copies.
Print runs vary. PANK is doing 750 this year. I know Barrelhouse prints 1,000. If I remember correclty, when I worked there, Prairie Schooner printed at least 5,000 and for some reason, the number 14,000 is n my mind but my memory could be faulty there.
I do believe that standards for many online magazines are now as stringent as print magazines which is really nice to see. I vastly prefer the ease of being able to use e-mail or a submission manager. I send out maybe 20 physically mailed submissions a year out of 200 or so, only to those magazines where I’d really like to see my work. I don’t know how online publishing can replicate the heft of words in your hand, unfortunately, but I can read those words on my phone and that’s nice too.
Those sad ugly little websites are heartbreaking. Not putting content online is a deliberate choice. But if someone has a website, it implies that they’ve acknowledged that the internet exists and they want to have a prescence in it. To do so less than half-heartedly just cheapens everything. Hire the little cousin of your buddy from college who is good with computers. Get this done right.
These are great questions. I think my work is far more read online and because I’m not in creative writing professionally, I have no particular yen for my work to be in print more than online. I do love, however, receiving contributor copies.
Print runs vary. PANK is doing 750 this year. I know Barrelhouse prints 1,000. If I remember correclty, when I worked there, Prairie Schooner printed at least 5,000 and for some reason, the number 14,000 is n my mind but my memory could be faulty there.
I do believe that standards for many online magazines are now as stringent as print magazines which is really nice to see. I vastly prefer the ease of being able to use e-mail or a submission manager. I send out maybe 20 physically mailed submissions a year out of 200 or so, only to those magazines where I’d really like to see my work. I don’t know how online publishing can replicate the heft of words in your hand, unfortunately, but I can read those words on my phone and that’s nice too.
Those sad ugly little websites are heartbreaking. Not putting content online is a deliberate choice. But if someone has a website, it implies that they’ve acknowledged that the internet exists and they want to have a prescence in it. To do so less than half-heartedly just cheapens everything. Hire the little cousin of your buddy from college who is good with computers. Get this done right.
The one thing that print journals will always have that online can’t compete with is heft, tangibility, object. The only thing an online journal can do to compete against that is to occasionally release a print anthology.
Certainly as a writer, I feel as though my work is read more when published online, but again, it could be simple misconception due to people reading my print work don’t have the ease of commenting or clicking on a link to my blog via the author bio.
I think also, online allows me to distribute my work to people more readily. Whereas I have to either let friends/family/etc. (I hesitate to say “fans/followers” at this point in my writing career) borrow a contributor’s copy or expect them purchase their own copy of something of mine in print, I can simply email or post to my blog a link to an online pub.
The one thing that print journals will always have that online can’t compete with is heft, tangibility, object. The only thing an online journal can do to compete against that is to occasionally release a print anthology.
Certainly as a writer, I feel as though my work is read more when published online, but again, it could be simple misconception due to people reading my print work don’t have the ease of commenting or clicking on a link to my blog via the author bio.
I think also, online allows me to distribute my work to people more readily. Whereas I have to either let friends/family/etc. (I hesitate to say “fans/followers” at this point in my writing career) borrow a contributor’s copy or expect them purchase their own copy of something of mine in print, I can simply email or post to my blog a link to an online pub.
I actually don’t know yet on BP. I think 500.
I actually don’t know yet on BP. I think 500.
I wish I remembered/knew how many we printed the year I was a contributing editor, but 500 sounds right.
I wish I remembered/knew how many we printed the year I was a contributing editor, but 500 sounds right.
There really is nothing sadder than a sad website, particularly given that in the age of CMS and easy to use CMS like Word Press, there is just no excuse. When a new market pops up on Duotrope with a design that is,as you so aptly put it, heartbreaking, I sometimes feel like e-mailing the editor to say, let me help you help yourself–a design intervention, if you will.
There really is nothing sadder than a sad website, particularly given that in the age of CMS and easy to use CMS like Word Press, there is just no excuse. When a new market pops up on Duotrope with a design that is,as you so aptly put it, heartbreaking, I sometimes feel like e-mailing the editor to say, let me help you help yourself–a design intervention, if you will.
I think the thing about heft is true but also, conversely, there is something nice about the transience of literary magazines. If you publish online, your piece is there for life in a way that can be easily accessed. That might be okay, except you don’t get to control what is the easiest to find (the most random out of date work can top your google searches) and there is no context to tell you when the piece came from. When you are dealing with print, your work comes out in the context it is supposed to and then you choose whether to bring it to other contexts or not (anthologies, collections, etc.)
I think the thing about heft is true but also, conversely, there is something nice about the transience of literary magazines. If you publish online, your piece is there for life in a way that can be easily accessed. That might be okay, except you don’t get to control what is the easiest to find (the most random out of date work can top your google searches) and there is no context to tell you when the piece came from. When you are dealing with print, your work comes out in the context it is supposed to and then you choose whether to bring it to other contexts or not (anthologies, collections, etc.)
Great topic and a lot of great posts here too. I address it in some detail here, where I take the side of ONLINE.
http://whatdoesnotkillme.com/2009/10/24/dc2-printvsonline/
I think it depends on your goals. If you’re in a cool magazine that prints 750, how many read your work? What about an anthology that sells 5,000? What about a website that get 10,000 hits a day? I have a little story up at Troubadour 21 that has gotten over 300 views, which I thought was a step in the right direction. The taboo of online publishing has softened, and I think both print and online have their place. Both places have their negatives and positives. In the end, I just seek out great content. You can read the New Yorker online, same with some great stuff at Hobart and Juked, etc. You can also subscribe to any number of great reviews, Paris, Missouri, Black Warrior, etc.
Not a lot of online places pay, so there’s that too.
Keep writing well, keep reading widely, and seek out innovation. I was blown away by the back issues of Annalemma, such BEAUTIFUL design (thanks Amelia for the lead) and the Opium issue with the cover that takes hundreds of years to reveal itself, so cool.
I think we’re all doing okay, and to snub or look down at anyone that is simply trying their best, well, that’s just a turn off to me.
Peace,
Richard
Great topic and a lot of great posts here too. I address it in some detail here, where I take the side of ONLINE.
http://whatdoesnotkillme.com/2009/10/24/dc2-printvsonline/
I think it depends on your goals. If you’re in a cool magazine that prints 750, how many read your work? What about an anthology that sells 5,000? What about a website that get 10,000 hits a day? I have a little story up at Troubadour 21 that has gotten over 300 views, which I thought was a step in the right direction. The taboo of online publishing has softened, and I think both print and online have their place. Both places have their negatives and positives. In the end, I just seek out great content. You can read the New Yorker online, same with some great stuff at Hobart and Juked, etc. You can also subscribe to any number of great reviews, Paris, Missouri, Black Warrior, etc.
Not a lot of online places pay, so there’s that too.
Keep writing well, keep reading widely, and seek out innovation. I was blown away by the back issues of Annalemma, such BEAUTIFUL design (thanks Amelia for the lead) and the Opium issue with the cover that takes hundreds of years to reveal itself, so cool.
I think we’re all doing okay, and to snub or look down at anyone that is simply trying their best, well, that’s just a turn off to me.
Peace,
Richard
so much post! so little comment space. your thoughts are definitely appreciated, roxane.
anyways, some thoughts:
-gigantic printed 1000 copies of #1. looking at something similar or less for #2.
-i agree with a lot of what you said, roxane, about the non-panorama stuff.
without taking too much time to get into, however, i’d say junker’s opinions are interesting and thought-provoking and realistic. at the same time, they’re wildly ungenerous and, given junker is a longtime eggers hater and professional rival, sound a little something like sour grapes. (at least that’s my wildly ungenerous take on his wildly ungenerous take.)
what i’m saying is, take it with a grain of salt.
i dunno.
i bought a copy of the panorama last night from a local bookstore. and although i haven’t really gotten a chance to “dig” into it yet, and although i know it’s not any kind of “solution” to the dying print form, i have to say: the thing itself is absolutely fucking beautiful — and yes, kind of brilliant. in short, it’s the kind of thing that i believe more print magazines should do, which isn’t to say “make a newspaper,” or “save the newspaper,” but to “make an object,” to create a physical something that people will want to touch, find valuable, hold, be careful with, want to give as a gift. something that gives a sense of awe and wonder. there’s a sense of mystery there, of curiosity.
since when does “fun” or “enjoyment” become such a negative thing?
belief is a beautiful thing and the issue makes you belief, even if, ultimately, you know that belief is unsustainable.
but what belief isn’t?
so much post! so little comment space. your thoughts are definitely appreciated, roxane.
anyways, some thoughts:
-gigantic printed 1000 copies of #1. looking at something similar or less for #2.
-i agree with a lot of what you said, roxane, about the non-panorama stuff.
without taking too much time to get into, however, i’d say junker’s opinions are interesting and thought-provoking and realistic. at the same time, they’re wildly ungenerous and, given junker is a longtime eggers hater and professional rival, sound a little something like sour grapes. (at least that’s my wildly ungenerous take on his wildly ungenerous take.)
what i’m saying is, take it with a grain of salt.
i dunno.
i bought a copy of the panorama last night from a local bookstore. and although i haven’t really gotten a chance to “dig” into it yet, and although i know it’s not any kind of “solution” to the dying print form, i have to say: the thing itself is absolutely fucking beautiful — and yes, kind of brilliant. in short, it’s the kind of thing that i believe more print magazines should do, which isn’t to say “make a newspaper,” or “save the newspaper,” but to “make an object,” to create a physical something that people will want to touch, find valuable, hold, be careful with, want to give as a gift. something that gives a sense of awe and wonder. there’s a sense of mystery there, of curiosity.
since when does “fun” or “enjoyment” become such a negative thing?
belief is a beautiful thing and the issue makes you belief, even if, ultimately, you know that belief is unsustainable.
but what belief isn’t?
Only printing less Gigantics cause the issue is gonna be fancier though!
Only printing less Gigantics cause the issue is gonna be fancier though!
There should be a reality TV show on Bravo for this. Maybe there already is.
There should be a reality TV show on Bravo for this. Maybe there already is.
indeed, that is the reason we are printing less — it has nothing to do with the rise or fall of print journal publishing
thanks for the clarification, brah
indeed, that is the reason we are printing less — it has nothing to do with the rise or fall of print journal publishing
thanks for the clarification, brah
also: forgive the typos!
also: forgive the typos!
I often wonder if people who feel very strongly that online publication is better feel the same way about publishing a book instead of a story. would you opt for an online book? Why/why not?
I often wonder if people who feel very strongly that online publication is better feel the same way about publishing a book instead of a story. would you opt for an online book? Why/why not?
Thanks for bringing attention to the post on our Identity Theory editors’ blog. I really enjoy HTMLGIANT.
To be clear, the author of the post on small-print litmags is actually our fiction editor, Andrew Whitacre. So his name should replace mine in your post as he deserves all the credit. Thanks again for reading.
Thanks for bringing attention to the post on our Identity Theory editors’ blog. I really enjoy HTMLGIANT.
To be clear, the author of the post on small-print litmags is actually our fiction editor, Andrew Whitacre. So his name should replace mine in your post as he deserves all the credit. Thanks again for reading.
well, not always for life.
i’ve had about 10-15 stories go up in journals (including drunk and lonely men, tuesday shorts, etc.) over the years that are no longer accessible in any shape or form online
well, not always for life.
i’ve had about 10-15 stories go up in journals (including drunk and lonely men, tuesday shorts, etc.) over the years that are no longer accessible in any shape or form online
ben, i am re-reading your previous notes to my about my blog in a new light, friendo
ben, i am re-reading your previous notes to my about my blog in a new light, friendo
Works published online are only available so long as the hosting bill is being paid.
Works published online are only available so long as the hosting bill is being paid.
I’ll def. fix this. I wasn’t sure.
I’ll def. fix this. I wasn’t sure.
yes not always literally for life, but you catch my drift.
yes not always literally for life, but you catch my drift.
Good is good. I really enjoyed reading Shya’s F42 online, and I didn’t mind it like that at all. Max Barry also did something where he posted up a bit every day. That was cool. I like to touch books, carry them with me. But I’m reading more stuff online – just clicked over to TNY for the new TC Boyle “La Conchita”. It’s partly about access, comfort, old habits. Who doesn’t like sitting in a nice easy chair or recliner, by a fire maybe, with a cup of tea or wine or beer and reading? I spend too much time on the computer as it is, all day, as an art director, so I like to get off of the computer too.
Good is good. I really enjoyed reading Shya’s F42 online, and I didn’t mind it like that at all. Max Barry also did something where he posted up a bit every day. That was cool. I like to touch books, carry them with me. But I’m reading more stuff online – just clicked over to TNY for the new TC Boyle “La Conchita”. It’s partly about access, comfort, old habits. Who doesn’t like sitting in a nice easy chair or recliner, by a fire maybe, with a cup of tea or wine or beer and reading? I spend too much time on the computer as it is, all day, as an art director, so I like to get off of the computer too.
[…] HTML Giant – Books: Maybe we’re not doing it wrong […]
None of those pieces is available via archive.org, Dave? I think my work has been in more defunct mags than currently existing ones, but I can’t think of a single piece I can’t find in the archive if I know where to look.
None of those pieces is available via archive.org, Dave? I think my work has been in more defunct mags than currently existing ones, but I can’t think of a single piece I can’t find in the archive if I know where to look.
Roxane gave some print numbers. I’ll give some online numbers. Adding up unique visitors from each month over the past year (filtering out return visitors so they’re not double-counted), we had just under 100,000 unique visitors in the past year. So figure about 25,000 people per issue? Looking at the return visitors, it looks like it averages about 2,500 per month. Maybe that’s what should be considered our “subscriber” base? Dunno. Even breaking down unique versus return visitors is dicey, though. People use different machines, change jobs, etc. I personally count as at least 3 visitors this year, just based on the home PC and two different job computers.
So… I dunno.
I’ve argued more strongly in the past that online gets more eyeballs than print, and I largely based that on page views (we’re usually around 100,000/month). I think visitors is maybe a bit more accurate in terms of actual eyeballs, though.
It feels like if there are two magazines of similar age and status (publishing similar authors, etc.), the online content gets read more, but I wouldn’t swear to it. Probably the closest comparison I know of to us in print is Quick Fiction (they’re about a year and a half older than SmokeLong, and only recently began making any of their content available online). Would be interesting to know what their print runs are.
Roxane gave some print numbers. I’ll give some online numbers. Adding up unique visitors from each month over the past year (filtering out return visitors so they’re not double-counted), we had just under 100,000 unique visitors in the past year. So figure about 25,000 people per issue? Looking at the return visitors, it looks like it averages about 2,500 per month. Maybe that’s what should be considered our “subscriber” base? Dunno. Even breaking down unique versus return visitors is dicey, though. People use different machines, change jobs, etc. I personally count as at least 3 visitors this year, just based on the home PC and two different job computers.
So… I dunno.
I’ve argued more strongly in the past that online gets more eyeballs than print, and I largely based that on page views (we’re usually around 100,000/month). I think visitors is maybe a bit more accurate in terms of actual eyeballs, though.
It feels like if there are two magazines of similar age and status (publishing similar authors, etc.), the online content gets read more, but I wouldn’t swear to it. Probably the closest comparison I know of to us in print is Quick Fiction (they’re about a year and a half older than SmokeLong, and only recently began making any of their content available online). Would be interesting to know what their print runs are.
I don’t see myself with a book any time soon, but were I to gather enough material for one, I’d probably be more inclined toward print, if only because of eye strain. Short stories, poetry, flash work really well online–their length is well-suited to the medium. Longer stuff is much easier to read on the page. The way it refracts and reflects light (versus projecting it) is the biggest part of it. A smaller part is how blocks of texts are arranged. A piece scrolling on and on and on… is a hell of a lot tougher to look up from and then regain one’s place.
I don’t see myself with a book any time soon, but were I to gather enough material for one, I’d probably be more inclined toward print, if only because of eye strain. Short stories, poetry, flash work really well online–their length is well-suited to the medium. Longer stuff is much easier to read on the page. The way it refracts and reflects light (versus projecting it) is the biggest part of it. A smaller part is how blocks of texts are arranged. A piece scrolling on and on and on… is a hell of a lot tougher to look up from and then regain one’s place.
Roxane, love the points you make on my piece. I should acknowledge two of my biases for the sake of this discussion that probably make your argument even stronger–and I’m doing so because I do want print versions of journals to thrive but just not to keep ignoring the complementary advantages of publishing online, especially if, after analyzing one’s mix of print and potential online readers, it turns out to be a better use of one’s budget.
My bias #1: My work on has put me face-to-face with the weakness of many literary journal websites. I just finished this week going through the Poets and Writers list of literary outlets to see which I could add, and of 450 or so publications, maybe half had online content and half of those aren’t readable by Google let alone Readsfeed. So seeing site after site not make content easily available online, that provides a certain emotional bias on my end.
Bias #2: In the working world, I do communications work for MIT’s Center for Future Civic Media (http://civic.mit.edu). We’re dealing with a really similar question every day: how does a community use technology to talk to itself, especially if the future of print newspapers is in question? We’re funded by the Knight Foundation (of Knight-Ridder history) and they want us to come up with tech that will save newspapers, but the more work we do, the more we realize the traditional function of newspapers are being picked up (in effective and not-as-effective ways) by new means.
After Christmas, I’ll take so more time on these questions, but for the time being, thanks for the great responses.
Roxane, love the points you make on my piece. I should acknowledge two of my biases for the sake of this discussion that probably make your argument even stronger–and I’m doing so because I do want print versions of journals to thrive but just not to keep ignoring the complementary advantages of publishing online, especially if, after analyzing one’s mix of print and potential online readers, it turns out to be a better use of one’s budget.
My bias #1: My work on has put me face-to-face with the weakness of many literary journal websites. I just finished this week going through the Poets and Writers list of literary outlets to see which I could add, and of 450 or so publications, maybe half had online content and half of those aren’t readable by Google let alone Readsfeed. So seeing site after site not make content easily available online, that provides a certain emotional bias on my end.
Bias #2: In the working world, I do communications work for MIT’s Center for Future Civic Media (http://civic.mit.edu). We’re dealing with a really similar question every day: how does a community use technology to talk to itself, especially if the future of print newspapers is in question? We’re funded by the Knight Foundation (of Knight-Ridder history) and they want us to come up with tech that will save newspapers, but the more work we do, the more we realize the traditional function of newspapers are being picked up (in effective and not-as-effective ways) by new means.
After Christmas, I’ll take so more time on these questions, but for the time being, thanks for the great responses.
[…] the rest of the post on […]