The One Where I Talk About AWP, Star Trek, Revolutionary Road, and Publishing
At Bark, I read a post about magazines who try new things and how most lit mags all say the same thing about their mission. At the AWP Bookfair last year, a woman came to our table and asked what we’re looking for. I said, quite perkily, “We’re looking for great writing,” which was, clearly, the wrong answer but I had already answered that question approx. 1,311 times and wanted to be polite but also had nothing left to say on the matter. She pursed her lips and dropped the issue of our magazine like it was tainted. She said, “That’s what everyone says,” and then she flounced away.
I have thought about that woman a lot over the past year as I’ve tried to determine the right answer to her question. I would say the same exact thing if I were in that situation again. What else can I say? Should I put on a song and dance, or make up some fancy bullshit about innovation and genre blurring and experiment? In literary magazines isn’t the maxim that actions speak louder than words especially true? It’s important to be able to articulate a mission (which we do have) but sometimes, the proof is on the page. Sometimes you have to take a few minutes from your demanding bookfair table hopping schedule to open the magazine and look at a few things.
I think a lot about the idea of innovation and how so many discussions about the future of publishing continue to insist that the publishing industry needs to innovate. Most of these discussions, however, are vague and indeterminate and based largely on the premise that if we incorporate technology and/or social networking somehow, we’ll be okay. If I’ve learned nothing else, I do know that innovation, or at least the rhetoric about innovation in publishing is all about the digital world.
Sometimes, people use words without knowing what they mean or they forget what those words mean or those words are used so often and so carelessly that those words lose their original meaning and intent and they end up just hollow and sad.
I like reading the dictionary and learning about the origins of words and reading the sentences the dictionary people come up with to demonstrate how a word should be used.
I looked up the word innovate in the Oxford English Dictionary.
1. trans. To change (a thing) into something new; to alter; to renew.
2. To bring in (something new) the first time; to introduce as new.
3. intr. To bring in or introduce novelties; to make changes in something established; to introduce innovations.
The creators of Star Trek envisioned chess in the future with a three dimensional game board but still, there was something familiar, recognizable about the thing. They introduced a novelty; they made a change to something established without destroying that something established. To innovate does not require forgetting where something comes from or how it began.
Desperation leads to poor decision making. Desperate people say and do desperate things. Desperation is not a good look. I recently watched the movie Revolutionary Road and love the movie or hate the movie (which is good but not as good as the book), the ending is heartbreaking. It speaks, in its own way to what people will do when they feel trapped, without options, desperate. April Wheeler’s quiet desperation is so intense she performs a painful abortion on herself. She destroys something inside of her to find a way out of her misery and, of course, her frantic choice does not end well, not for anyone.
Depending on what you read, these are desperate times for the publishing industry. There’s a lot of flailing while we try to innovate while simultaneously destroying those parts of ourselves that are bringing the industry down, tethering us to the past, contributing to our collective failure or at least, the general perception thereof. To what end, though? What does it really mean for publishing to innovate, to evolve, to move forward? Is anyone even addressing that question or are we just bloviating about innovation with no clear understanding of the what and why of our words.
I’m mostly thinking aloud but I worry. I worry that as the publishing industry moves forward, desperately caterwauling about, trying to sustain ourselves, trying to innovate, we’ll forget completely about what innovation truly means, about renewing, about introducing new ideas, about building upon, not destroying established things and in the wake of that forgetting, we’ll kill the things most alive within us, the things that once made publishing great*. We’ll be left with something completely unrecognizable, an approach that won’t end well for anyone.
*I’m not convinced that it’s not still great. I personally think publishing is doing quite well.
Freaks!!!
Freaks!!!
Rev Road spoiler alert
Rev Road spoiler alert
Major spoiler alert, yes.
Also, loved the movie, worship the book (I spit on ABR when one idiot there said it “fooled everyone into thinking it was good” or some shit like that.)
Major spoiler alert, yes.
Also, loved the movie, worship the book (I spit on ABR when one idiot there said it “fooled everyone into thinking it was good” or some shit like that.)
Not only was this a great, thoughtful post, but it contained Freaks! And Star Trek! And Revolutionary Road! Three things I love love love love love. (Book more, but the movie broke my heart in a good way, too.) Oh, awesomeness in the morning.
Not only was this a great, thoughtful post, but it contained Freaks! And Star Trek! And Revolutionary Road! Three things I love love love love love. (Book more, but the movie broke my heart in a good way, too.) Oh, awesomeness in the morning.
Also, I like PANK’s new guidelines. I like the openness but definite sense of place I get when I read them. I think that kind of thing is one way to encourage innovation. After all, innovation is really the writer’s job. The magazine’s job is to seek it, foster it, print it, create a home for it, maybe even a movement around it.
Also, I like PANK’s new guidelines. I like the openness but definite sense of place I get when I read them. I think that kind of thing is one way to encourage innovation. After all, innovation is really the writer’s job. The magazine’s job is to seek it, foster it, print it, create a home for it, maybe even a movement around it.
awesome post. thanks, roxane!
awesome post. thanks, roxane!
You are all over the place in this short essay, which makes forming a coherent response difficult. What does innovation and desperation have to do with that woman who asked what you are looking for?
I honestly don’t think there is anything all that wrong with your answer, it is vague and trite (what magazine isn’t looking for great writing), but telling her what you think great writing is, or does, or better yet opening up your magazine and saying this is great writing, would have given her a better idea of what you meant.
You are all over the place in this short essay, which makes forming a coherent response difficult. What does innovation and desperation have to do with that woman who asked what you are looking for?
I honestly don’t think there is anything all that wrong with your answer, it is vague and trite (what magazine isn’t looking for great writing), but telling her what you think great writing is, or does, or better yet opening up your magazine and saying this is great writing, would have given her a better idea of what you meant.
But most good magazines don’t want the same old stuff. They don’t want imitations of what they’ve printed. Of course there’s value in familiarization, in general terms, but good editors are wary of declaring an aesthetic.
But most good magazines don’t want the same old stuff. They don’t want imitations of what they’ve printed. Of course there’s value in familiarization, in general terms, but good editors are wary of declaring an aesthetic.
It’s not a spoiler when the book has been out since 1961. I sort of knew someone would say that, though.
The book is just sublime. SUBLIME.
It’s not a spoiler when the book has been out since 1961. I sort of knew someone would say that, though.
The book is just sublime. SUBLIME.
Thoughtful, well-written and hopefully a great conversation starter of a post, Roxane. Really appreciate your voice here on HTMLg. I feel like the major flaw in the argument that the publishing industry is losing or dying or whatever, all centers around profit and money and the idea that we’ve attached monetary value to these cultural objects. With that value comes the artist’s ambition — the need to align how well a book does in terms of sales numbers, with how good / interesting / loved the book actually is.
I tend to think this is a really disastrous notion. There are ways and means of producing legitimate, interesting and cost-effective books. There are still many hundreds of amazing pieces of literature being written, and there are lots of great writers who have and are successfully marrying the use of technology via the Internet with the words on the page. Not only can it be done, it is being done. A lot. By a BROAD group of writers. It’s not like I am speaking of a tiny cadre of innovators who have figured out the only answer.
There are answers everywhere. To me, the anxiety over the publishing conundrum people so often speak of can be ameliorated with a paradigm shift, not a new spreadsheet speaking to a way to maximize profits.
Thoughtful, well-written and hopefully a great conversation starter of a post, Roxane. Really appreciate your voice here on HTMLg. I feel like the major flaw in the argument that the publishing industry is losing or dying or whatever, all centers around profit and money and the idea that we’ve attached monetary value to these cultural objects. With that value comes the artist’s ambition — the need to align how well a book does in terms of sales numbers, with how good / interesting / loved the book actually is.
I tend to think this is a really disastrous notion. There are ways and means of producing legitimate, interesting and cost-effective books. There are still many hundreds of amazing pieces of literature being written, and there are lots of great writers who have and are successfully marrying the use of technology via the Internet with the words on the page. Not only can it be done, it is being done. A lot. By a BROAD group of writers. It’s not like I am speaking of a tiny cadre of innovators who have figured out the only answer.
There are answers everywhere. To me, the anxiety over the publishing conundrum people so often speak of can be ameliorated with a paradigm shift, not a new spreadsheet speaking to a way to maximize profits.
I am not confident that an editor giving an example is declaring an aesthetic and asking for more of the same. Perhaps clarifying the example would be helpful, “we printed this piece for this reason”, etc, I believe most readers are not seeking a philosophical or metaphysical grounding in their art, they want (in gross survey) pleasure, personal accessibility (something which is relevant to them), excitement, thoughtfulness, and craftsmenship — something they cannot do nor imagine doing, they want writing which requires effort and talent.
So far discussions of innovation have not been very helpful, (was it Camus who said?) that the great artist shouldn’t worry about being contemporary, they can’t help but be contemporary. And the contemporary author is the innovative author at least I suspect as much. The problem with innovation for innovations sake is it can become ‘gimmicky’ instead of ‘genuine’, a dilemma this community is currently debating in regards to Tao Lin’s budding career.
It seems that Roxane is connecting this with desperation, and it is desperation when there isn’t any substance behind the innovation. For a writer to begin by trying to be innovative is someone with confused priorities, like writing a nobel acceptance speech before the writer has even published.
I am not confident that an editor giving an example is declaring an aesthetic and asking for more of the same. Perhaps clarifying the example would be helpful, “we printed this piece for this reason”, etc, I believe most readers are not seeking a philosophical or metaphysical grounding in their art, they want (in gross survey) pleasure, personal accessibility (something which is relevant to them), excitement, thoughtfulness, and craftsmenship — something they cannot do nor imagine doing, they want writing which requires effort and talent.
So far discussions of innovation have not been very helpful, (was it Camus who said?) that the great artist shouldn’t worry about being contemporary, they can’t help but be contemporary. And the contemporary author is the innovative author at least I suspect as much. The problem with innovation for innovations sake is it can become ‘gimmicky’ instead of ‘genuine’, a dilemma this community is currently debating in regards to Tao Lin’s budding career.
It seems that Roxane is connecting this with desperation, and it is desperation when there isn’t any substance behind the innovation. For a writer to begin by trying to be innovative is someone with confused priorities, like writing a nobel acceptance speech before the writer has even published.
Actually just came across this video, and its pretty apt to this post, I think. Definitely a welcome change from all the “end of publishing/literature” doomsaying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weq_sHxghcg
You have to wait for it, though. It seems doomsaying at first, but, just. Wait for it.
Actually just came across this video, and its pretty apt to this post, I think. Definitely a welcome change from all the “end of publishing/literature” doomsaying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weq_sHxghcg
You have to wait for it, though. It seems doomsaying at first, but, just. Wait for it.
Steven we don’t like to articulate too much of an aesthetic because we’re quite open to being challenged. That said, we do have a spiel we can recite about what we’re looking for. As I noticed in the post, I had answered that question, quite literally, hundreds of times that day. I had nothing left to say.
I am all over the place in this essay (if you want to call it that) but I think there’s a connection between my little nuggets of thought. My ultimate point is that innovation doesn’t necessarily require destroying everything publishing has been built on and also that the word innovation is becoming diluted in its meaning because it is so overused. In our (the broadly construed our) desperation to save publishing, I worry that we’re going to move too far away from what we should be doing to put great writing out in the world for as big an audience as possible.
Noticed should be noted.
Steven we don’t like to articulate too much of an aesthetic because we’re quite open to being challenged. That said, we do have a spiel we can recite about what we’re looking for. As I noticed in the post, I had answered that question, quite literally, hundreds of times that day. I had nothing left to say.
I am all over the place in this essay (if you want to call it that) but I think there’s a connection between my little nuggets of thought. My ultimate point is that innovation doesn’t necessarily require destroying everything publishing has been built on and also that the word innovation is becoming diluted in its meaning because it is so overused. In our (the broadly construed our) desperation to save publishing, I worry that we’re going to move too far away from what we should be doing to put great writing out in the world for as big an audience as possible.
Noticed should be noted.
Great video and very appropriate.
Great video and very appropriate.
Well worth the wait indeed.I’m a little bit sick in the head already with all things “hope” and “hopeful” but it’s still worth the wait.
Well worth the wait indeed.I’m a little bit sick in the head already with all things “hope” and “hopeful” but it’s still worth the wait.
Nah. I know what you mean. But this just felt right; the idea that perhaps what’s necessary isn’t to tear down everything, but to just expect more from readers.
It’s a pretty common thread of thought around here, and I’m sure it’s somewhat choir-preaching to post this vid here of all places, but I think they do a pretty awesome job of showing that in this vid.
Nah. I know what you mean. But this just felt right; the idea that perhaps what’s necessary isn’t to tear down everything, but to just expect more from readers.
It’s a pretty common thread of thought around here, and I’m sure it’s somewhat choir-preaching to post this vid here of all places, but I think they do a pretty awesome job of showing that in this vid.
I hear ya, CE. Best to go with your gut, I think. Video was a nice piece, to be sure. My poo-poo on hope is a deeper thing that’s always in a corner of my head somewhere. And I think you hit it on the mark with the idea about expecting more from readers. Getting them prepared to do/give/want more is another story… not an easy task.
I hear ya, CE. Best to go with your gut, I think. Video was a nice piece, to be sure. My poo-poo on hope is a deeper thing that’s always in a corner of my head somewhere. And I think you hit it on the mark with the idea about expecting more from readers. Getting them prepared to do/give/want more is another story… not an easy task.
that video was great! thanks!
that video was great! thanks!
Now I want to find the Star Trek action figures and accessories that are now no doubt in my mother’s garage in the mountains near Boulder and dig out the small plastic 3-D chess board that accompanied my Whoopi Goldberg as Guinan action figure so you can put in on Pank’s table at the book fair and when that lady or another similar lady comes up and asks you what you’re looking for, you can pick up the chess board and say, “This. This is what we’re looking for.”
Now I want to find the Star Trek action figures and accessories that are now no doubt in my mother’s garage in the mountains near Boulder and dig out the small plastic 3-D chess board that accompanied my Whoopi Goldberg as Guinan action figure so you can put in on Pank’s table at the book fair and when that lady or another similar lady comes up and asks you what you’re looking for, you can pick up the chess board and say, “This. This is what we’re looking for.”
I really, really want this to happen.
I really, really want this to happen.