Web Hype
Open Call for Thoughts about Submitting Work to Online/Print Journals – via Dennis Cooper’s Blog
Sometime last week, Alan, a distinguished local in Dennis Cooper’s The Weaklings blog community asked DC a question about the relative virtues of submitting work to online and/or print publications. DC put the question to the community, but for whatever reason few took the bait, so DC told Alan that it might be a better question for a blog like ours. Of course this was all happening in the daily-epic “p.s.” section of DC’s blog, so I saw it, and offered to make that notion a reality. Here’s the question Alan asked. After the jump you’ll find the answer I posted on DC’s blog. And please do leave your thoughts in the comments section here on this post.
THE QUESTION: Is there a big difference in readership or prestige these days between print publication by a journal and web-only publication (by same journal)? I notice a lot of outlets for submitting my story are asking me to choose which one I’m trying for. I’d love to know what other people here think.
This is the relevant part of a comment I left on DC’s blog on Sunday:
Personally, I think there is still a so-called “prestige” divide, between print and online. Like–“oh you were on Web Conjunctions? I thought you said you’d been *in* Conjunctions.” I think the bias comes mostly at the older-school journals, already secure in their prestige, because there’s this sense (sometimes true, sometimes not) that the real heavies are running the magazine and they’re letting the interns & juniors use the website as a training ground slash playground– which sort of sounds like more fun than dealing with the heavies, but nobody goes to the playground looking for prestige. Right?
With publications that only exist on the web (like Narrative, elimae, 5_trope) I think there’s a whole other schematic of relative values and prestige (I know it felt extremely important–urgent–for me to get into 5_trope. It took 2 years, but I did it. I don’t know if anyone read the story, but it’s there.)
But it depends on what you’re looking for as a writer- if you’re trying to place stories so somebody buys your book, Harp & Altar isn’t going to be as useful to you as, say, The Paris Review, or even a smaller journal like Post Road. But what you give up in (again, so-called) prestige you gain back in immediacy and reach. If you just want your work out there, and read, I don’t see why you’d use any other metric besides “this journal/site/zine/wall looks cool; I want to be part of what they’re doing.”
Those 560 people you’re facebook friends with are not buying an issue of Post Road just because you’re in it. But if you post a link to your story, and they’re at work trying to be unproductive anyway–well why wouldn’t they at least give it a try?
Tags: Dennis Cooper, online literature
There is a certain prestige. I want to be able to go to my elementary school teacher, the one that assigned me to write my own sequal to Island of the Blue Dophins, and she sent it to a college Creative Writing instructor, which kept me going. Or my mom who thinks print *is it*, and while she is really into web stuff, it is the visual web stuff she finds fascinating. If its in print, somehow it weighs more.
For people who my generation and before, and those doing the same thing I am doing, and for me personally, I do not mind the web too much. Someone in Spain could access it more readily than not. Then again, another person in Spain could have no access to the web, but could find some old beat up copy of something I’d published long ago, and be able to take it with them anywhere. That is the switch off, I believe. Print you can take anywhere. The web is everywhere, but less able to take with you. The money issue is more *there*…
There is a certain prestige. I want to be able to go to my elementary school teacher, the one that assigned me to write my own sequal to Island of the Blue Dophins, and she sent it to a college Creative Writing instructor, which kept me going. Or my mom who thinks print *is it*, and while she is really into web stuff, it is the visual web stuff she finds fascinating. If its in print, somehow it weighs more.
For people who my generation and before, and those doing the same thing I am doing, and for me personally, I do not mind the web too much. Someone in Spain could access it more readily than not. Then again, another person in Spain could have no access to the web, but could find some old beat up copy of something I’d published long ago, and be able to take it with them anywhere. That is the switch off, I believe. Print you can take anywhere. The web is everywhere, but less able to take with you. The money issue is more *there*…
Print costs more money to make, so print journals care more about your story than on-line ones do.
Or that is complete bullshit. I can’t tell.
Print costs more money to make, so print journals care more about your story than on-line ones do.
Or that is complete bullshit. I can’t tell.
The web is everywhere, but less able to take with you.
That’s becoming less and less the case, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, within ten years, printed literary journals are considered a fetish object akin to vinyl records, while online journals have taken over the industry.
The web is everywhere, but less able to take with you.
That’s becoming less and less the case, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, within ten years, printed literary journals are considered a fetish object akin to vinyl records, while online journals have taken over the industry.
I was more into print journals (or the “small magazines” like Nerve Cowboy, etc) when I first started sending stuff out in the early 90s. I didn’t even have a computer until the late 90s and, if I recall correctly, a lot of the literary web sites were really crappily designed and just bad in some cases.
I think nowadays, you’re more likely to get way more readers on a web site like Elimae or Word Riot then you are by appearing in Ploughshares. I’m serious.
The exception is this: local weekly papers or daily newspapers. If I have a story in a weekly magazine here like the Mercury or Willamette Week, I am sure that a few thousand people are reading it.
I was more into print journals (or the “small magazines” like Nerve Cowboy, etc) when I first started sending stuff out in the early 90s. I didn’t even have a computer until the late 90s and, if I recall correctly, a lot of the literary web sites were really crappily designed and just bad in some cases.
I think nowadays, you’re more likely to get way more readers on a web site like Elimae or Word Riot then you are by appearing in Ploughshares. I’m serious.
The exception is this: local weekly papers or daily newspapers. If I have a story in a weekly magazine here like the Mercury or Willamette Week, I am sure that a few thousand people are reading it.
As part of a publication with both print and online components, I can offer the data point that writers who are published online are read far more than writers we publish in our print issue. And yet. You would not believe the e-mails we got from contributors when we started publishing online last September. So many writers were really offended that their work was selected to go online. The whole thing really turned me off. Now we make it clear in our guidelines that if you aren’t comfortable going into either/or, don’t bother submitting because there are plenty of print-only journals out there. Long story short, the prestige factor still lingers with print but there are many benefits to online publishing (readership, flexibility, new media, affordability) that far outweigh the liabilities (impermanency, etc). As a writer I don’t care if a journal is online or in print. I enjoy the acceptance
As part of a publication with both print and online components, I can offer the data point that writers who are published online are read far more than writers we publish in our print issue. And yet. You would not believe the e-mails we got from contributors when we started publishing online last September. So many writers were really offended that their work was selected to go online. The whole thing really turned me off. Now we make it clear in our guidelines that if you aren’t comfortable going into either/or, don’t bother submitting because there are plenty of print-only journals out there. Long story short, the prestige factor still lingers with print but there are many benefits to online publishing (readership, flexibility, new media, affordability) that far outweigh the liabilities (impermanency, etc). As a writer I don’t care if a journal is online or in print. I enjoy the acceptance
The cost factor still plays into it. A print edition costs less (I believe) than its digital counterpart. But the technology used to deliver this product costs loads more than its paper brother. To have something in print that a poor kid can buy, or steal, rather, and read and maybe he’ll dig the work in there and it’ll spark his life, makes me love print a little bit more for that use than the online journals, until the digital delivery systems are perfected enough where their cost down-rockets.
The cost factor still plays into it. A print edition costs less (I believe) than its digital counterpart. But the technology used to deliver this product costs loads more than its paper brother. To have something in print that a poor kid can buy, or steal, rather, and read and maybe he’ll dig the work in there and it’ll spark his life, makes me love print a little bit more for that use than the online journals, until the digital delivery systems are perfected enough where their cost down-rockets.
this is what I meant: A print edition costs more (I believe) than its digital counterpart.
this is what I meant: A print edition costs more (I believe) than its digital counterpart.
My Grandma and Grandpa still think it’s not a real publication if ain’t in print (quoting them so excuse the informality).
I can’t think of a non-writer friend who will pay a dime to buy print journals that have my stories. When I post a link on facebook or twitter or my blog, I get hits from all kinds of folks who wouldn’t otherwise see it in print.
My Grandma and Grandpa still think it’s not a real publication if ain’t in print (quoting them so excuse the informality).
I can’t think of a non-writer friend who will pay a dime to buy print journals that have my stories. When I post a link on facebook or twitter or my blog, I get hits from all kinds of folks who wouldn’t otherwise see it in print.
Re Ploughshares, I believe Laura Ellen Scott posted on here a few months ago about placing a story with them and never hearing word one from anyone.
Re Ploughshares, I believe Laura Ellen Scott posted on here a few months ago about placing a story with them and never hearing word one from anyone.
Just briefly, because you used Conjunctions as an example: I’ve had a story in Web Conjunctions, and I’ve got a story in the next print issue. Both times, I was contacted directly by Brad Morrow, and there was no sense that “the real heavies are running the magazine and they’re letting the interns & juniors use the website as a training ground slash playground.” I don’t want to put words into Conjunctions’ mouth, but I never got the feeling that they see their online component as anything lesser or separate from their print magazine. Instead, it’s a place to publish works they wanted to publish that don’t fit into the print themes they’re reading for at that time. (Again, that’s my take– Not necessarily theirs, although I’m pretty sure they’d say something similar.)
Also, while I have no idea what the experience of being out in print with them is yet (at least not until November!), I can safely say that being online there was one of the best publishing experiences I’ve had–It looked good, was promoted well, and was read more widely perhaps than anything else I’ve published. I have absolutely no complaints about being a part of their website–In fact, through both experiences, they’ve been one of the most professional and friendly staffs I’ve ever worked with.
Just briefly, because you used Conjunctions as an example: I’ve had a story in Web Conjunctions, and I’ve got a story in the next print issue. Both times, I was contacted directly by Brad Morrow, and there was no sense that “the real heavies are running the magazine and they’re letting the interns & juniors use the website as a training ground slash playground.” I don’t want to put words into Conjunctions’ mouth, but I never got the feeling that they see their online component as anything lesser or separate from their print magazine. Instead, it’s a place to publish works they wanted to publish that don’t fit into the print themes they’re reading for at that time. (Again, that’s my take– Not necessarily theirs, although I’m pretty sure they’d say something similar.)
Also, while I have no idea what the experience of being out in print with them is yet (at least not until November!), I can safely say that being online there was one of the best publishing experiences I’ve had–It looked good, was promoted well, and was read more widely perhaps than anything else I’ve published. I have absolutely no complaints about being a part of their website–In fact, through both experiences, they’ve been one of the most professional and friendly staffs I’ve ever worked with.
”
I think nowadays, you’re more likely to get way more readers on a web site like Elimae or Word Riot then you are by appearing in Ploughshares. I’m serious.”
Hard to know about something like this. You might be right, but I’m not sure. Even if way more poeple click through Word Riot than buy Ploughshares, probably a much higher percentage of people who buy ploughshares will actually read your story than of people who click through an online site.
”
I think nowadays, you’re more likely to get way more readers on a web site like Elimae or Word Riot then you are by appearing in Ploughshares. I’m serious.”
Hard to know about something like this. You might be right, but I’m not sure. Even if way more poeple click through Word Riot than buy Ploughshares, probably a much higher percentage of people who buy ploughshares will actually read your story than of people who click through an online site.
i’ve been trying to make this point since forever. people BUY a book, they tend to put in the effort to read it. people can click through websites with no vested interest to do anything but move on quickly to the next site. you can’t say anyone is reading more online than print unless you are somehow tracking time spent at each site.
i’ve been trying to make this point since forever. people BUY a book, they tend to put in the effort to read it. people can click through websites with no vested interest to do anything but move on quickly to the next site. you can’t say anyone is reading more online than print unless you are somehow tracking time spent at each site.
for whatever it is worth, I do think there is a difference in prestige between print journals and online but it is not merely some luddite bias as some people seem to imply. The big print journals simply have more history, more money, bigger names and better editing. This is changing though. You have journals like Narrative and Electric Literature that pay well and seem well edited and put together. If a place like Electric Literature lasts for awhile and keeps on getting the people it does plus paying 1000 bucks, no way people look down on that as a publication.
for whatever it is worth, I do think there is a difference in prestige between print journals and online but it is not merely some luddite bias as some people seem to imply. The big print journals simply have more history, more money, bigger names and better editing. This is changing though. You have journals like Narrative and Electric Literature that pay well and seem well edited and put together. If a place like Electric Literature lasts for awhile and keeps on getting the people it does plus paying 1000 bucks, no way people look down on that as a publication.
Matt, I didn’t mean to disparage Conjunctions. I think they’re great. I’ve never been in their print or online versions, but I’ve read and enjoyed both very much. I was speaking about a perceived bias that I’ve encountered, and not my own opinion. They’re an interesting example, actually, in that they pointedly use “Web Conjunctions” as the official title for their online publication. Just out of curiosity- if you have been on Web Conjunctions, have you in fact “been in Conjunctions” ? Certainly, you have been “published by Conjunctions,” but it’s still a confusing situation, especially when you’re trying to quantify the essentially unquantifiable, as in Alan’s question re “prestige.” In terms of personal satisfaction, getting an acceptance directly from Brad Morrow is probably about as much as anyone could ask for.
Matt, I didn’t mean to disparage Conjunctions. I think they’re great. I’ve never been in their print or online versions, but I’ve read and enjoyed both very much. I was speaking about a perceived bias that I’ve encountered, and not my own opinion. They’re an interesting example, actually, in that they pointedly use “Web Conjunctions” as the official title for their online publication. Just out of curiosity- if you have been on Web Conjunctions, have you in fact “been in Conjunctions” ? Certainly, you have been “published by Conjunctions,” but it’s still a confusing situation, especially when you’re trying to quantify the essentially unquantifiable, as in Alan’s question re “prestige.” In terms of personal satisfaction, getting an acceptance directly from Brad Morrow is probably about as much as anyone could ask for.
For some reason it seems more confusing with Conjunctions than with other places since they label it in a way that feels like a separate publication.
In general, I would consider the online version of a print magazine to basically the same thing, certain exceptions aside (mcsweeneys.net is totally different than the print journal even just on a content level, for example)
For some reason it seems more confusing with Conjunctions than with other places since they label it in a way that feels like a separate publication.
In general, I would consider the online version of a print magazine to basically the same thing, certain exceptions aside (mcsweeneys.net is totally different than the print journal even just on a content level, for example)
Actually I might need to immediately take this back. For a lot of small lit magazines I think this is true, but it seems like every bigger magazine all the way on up to the New Yorker has exclusive online content and you can’t really claim to be in the new yorker if you have been on their blog.
hmm…
Actually I might need to immediately take this back. For a lot of small lit magazines I think this is true, but it seems like every bigger magazine all the way on up to the New Yorker has exclusive online content and you can’t really claim to be in the new yorker if you have been on their blog.
hmm…
I know you didn’t mean it that way, Justin– I just wanted to throw some personal experience in there. And yes, bios get funny with all sorts of stuff. For instance, people who write book reviews in lit mags will say that their “work appeared in such and such place,” which is a little disingenuous when sending out fictions subs, right?
The bigger point, to me, I guess, is that chasing prestige as a submitter is a weird game. I mostly send work to magazines I really like, if and when I have something that I think fits there. That’s more important to me than prestige, which is variable over time, and which means putting a lot of stock in what other people think. And of course some of today’s smaller magazines are going to be tomorrow’s big ones, and vice versa. Not to kick someone when they’re already down, but what will the perceived prestige of a Triquarterly credit be in ten years?
I know you didn’t mean it that way, Justin– I just wanted to throw some personal experience in there. And yes, bios get funny with all sorts of stuff. For instance, people who write book reviews in lit mags will say that their “work appeared in such and such place,” which is a little disingenuous when sending out fictions subs, right?
The bigger point, to me, I guess, is that chasing prestige as a submitter is a weird game. I mostly send work to magazines I really like, if and when I have something that I think fits there. That’s more important to me than prestige, which is variable over time, and which means putting a lot of stock in what other people think. And of course some of today’s smaller magazines are going to be tomorrow’s big ones, and vice versa. Not to kick someone when they’re already down, but what will the perceived prestige of a Triquarterly credit be in ten years?
We are tracking time spent at each page.
We know people are reading.
We are tracking time spent at each page.
We know people are reading.
the great thing about metrics roxane is that a person can find anything if that person is desiring to find a specific item.
the great thing about metrics roxane is that a person can find anything if that person is desiring to find a specific item.
if you’re tracking time spent and its in line with how long it might take to read certain pieces, and those reads are more than subscriptions to a magazine, than I would concur that online is getting more reads than print.
if you’re tracking time spent and its in line with how long it might take to read certain pieces, and those reads are more than subscriptions to a magazine, than I would concur that online is getting more reads than print.
I guess it depends on what you want. Sure, the Missouri Review would look better on your writer’s resume than Opium, but a nice mix of journals and “cool” online sources is the way to go, IMO. It also depends, as has been said, on whether you want more eyes on your work. Word Riot, former Dogmatika, or 3:AM Magazine may get more people to my work than a copy of Vain. Write and submit, and start at the top, go for the Paris Review, go for Tin House and McSweeney’s and then when you get rejected, move on. 1% is a brutal percentage, but we have to aim high.
I think the stigma of print is not as bad as it once was, and in time, the sites that get more traffic and hype will be on an equal level with the journals.
Peace,
Richard
I guess it depends on what you want. Sure, the Missouri Review would look better on your writer’s resume than Opium, but a nice mix of journals and “cool” online sources is the way to go, IMO. It also depends, as has been said, on whether you want more eyes on your work. Word Riot, former Dogmatika, or 3:AM Magazine may get more people to my work than a copy of Vain. Write and submit, and start at the top, go for the Paris Review, go for Tin House and McSweeney’s and then when you get rejected, move on. 1% is a brutal percentage, but we have to aim high.
I think the stigma of print is not as bad as it once was, and in time, the sites that get more traffic and hype will be on an equal level with the journals.
Peace,
Richard
Roxane: With absolutely no disrespect to PANK magazine, I suspect the situation is quite different at larger, long-established print magazines like Conjunctions or Angi than it is at newer magazines like PANK or Gigantic (my mag)
Roxane: With absolutely no disrespect to PANK magazine, I suspect the situation is quite different at larger, long-established print magazines like Conjunctions or Angi than it is at newer magazines like PANK or Gigantic (my mag)
Yeah, totally. My bio usually states that I write fiction and nonfiction, then lists some places where my work has appeared. One place I sometimes list is Tin House, who published an essay I wrote in their Lost & Found section. If you just read my bio somewhere, you’d probably think I had a story in there. I’m not sure if that’s disingenuous or not- I certainly don’t intend to mislead anyone, but there’s no realistic way to include that level of clarification in a bio-line. Besides which, I really was in the magazine. I pitched the idea, they took it, I did the work, the issue came out, and the check cleared.
And yeah, that’s actually a great point that you raise re TriQuarterly, which is basically just that these things are not without their half-lives. If Conjunctions closes up shop tomorrow, then after a while it’s not going to be that impressive if the lead-off pub credit in your bio is some journal nobody can remember anymore.
But the future is equally unpredictable in terms of prestige- someone who got some poems into FENCE #1 couldn’t have guessed that eleven or twelve years later they might be in a rad anthology the size of a phonebook, and have this really great pub credit on their permanent record. You never know.
If Gigantic sticks around for fifteen glorious Pushcart-filled years, the fact that I was in issue #1 will probably have a totally different cultural significance than if it folds before putting out a second issue. (You hearing this, Lincoln? Don’t leave my future self’s resume hanging…)
Yeah, totally. My bio usually states that I write fiction and nonfiction, then lists some places where my work has appeared. One place I sometimes list is Tin House, who published an essay I wrote in their Lost & Found section. If you just read my bio somewhere, you’d probably think I had a story in there. I’m not sure if that’s disingenuous or not- I certainly don’t intend to mislead anyone, but there’s no realistic way to include that level of clarification in a bio-line. Besides which, I really was in the magazine. I pitched the idea, they took it, I did the work, the issue came out, and the check cleared.
And yeah, that’s actually a great point that you raise re TriQuarterly, which is basically just that these things are not without their half-lives. If Conjunctions closes up shop tomorrow, then after a while it’s not going to be that impressive if the lead-off pub credit in your bio is some journal nobody can remember anymore.
But the future is equally unpredictable in terms of prestige- someone who got some poems into FENCE #1 couldn’t have guessed that eleven or twelve years later they might be in a rad anthology the size of a phonebook, and have this really great pub credit on their permanent record. You never know.
If Gigantic sticks around for fifteen glorious Pushcart-filled years, the fact that I was in issue #1 will probably have a totally different cultural significance than if it folds before putting out a second issue. (You hearing this, Lincoln? Don’t leave my future self’s resume hanging…)
Roxane, do the criteria for putting a particular piece online rather than printing it have to do with quality or something else? Also, if I’m reading you right, for you it’s an editorial decision; elsewhere writers are asked to choose which format they’d like to be considered for. If I were to say I’m submitting this for online publication, what if anything would I be saying about my work?
JUSTIN, thanks so much for bringing this up here. I’m following distractedly at work.
Roxane, do the criteria for putting a particular piece online rather than printing it have to do with quality or something else? Also, if I’m reading you right, for you it’s an editorial decision; elsewhere writers are asked to choose which format they’d like to be considered for. If I were to say I’m submitting this for online publication, what if anything would I be saying about my work?
JUSTIN, thanks so much for bringing this up here. I’m following distractedly at work.
Lincoln, the situation is way different at PANK than at a more established journal. I was just saying that Google Analytics lets us know how much time people spend on each page and that last year we did a print run of 500, a fraction of which went to subscribers so I know, unequivocally that more people read PANK online.
Jereme, I don’t understand your point. I was just talking about Google Analytics. It doesn’t require looking all that hard.
Lincoln, the situation is way different at PANK than at a more established journal. I was just saying that Google Analytics lets us know how much time people spend on each page and that last year we did a print run of 500, a fraction of which went to subscribers so I know, unequivocally that more people read PANK online.
Jereme, I don’t understand your point. I was just talking about Google Analytics. It doesn’t require looking all that hard.
Alan, the criteria for online versus print are the same. There’s nothing online I wouldn’t put in the print version. We select print pieces while (trying) to think about how the issue will work as a whole. We keep it as an editorial decision. We may, at some point, split the two, the way Hobart does, but for now, for us, the system works. I don’t think it says anything if you submit for online publication other than, just as with submitting for print, that you want to be read.
Alan, the criteria for online versus print are the same. There’s nothing online I wouldn’t put in the print version. We select print pieces while (trying) to think about how the issue will work as a whole. We keep it as an editorial decision. We may, at some point, split the two, the way Hobart does, but for now, for us, the system works. I don’t think it says anything if you submit for online publication other than, just as with submitting for print, that you want to be read.
There’s no point comparing the biggest, baddest print journals with a 6th-grader run online grammar catastrophe. If you want to compare print versus online, you need to compare the quality of the writing, the selectivity of the process. There are plenty of print journals that don’t wow any more than the online ones. Just because it has “review” in the name doesn’t make it any less boring. And because online is so easy, there is obviously a lot of tripe; that shouldn’t negate the quality of the fine online publications. Not to mention the reality that the biggest names sometimes publish the safest literature.
At the end of the day 99.9% of people—even people who like to read—aren’t going to buy anything other than novels and nonfiction books on Amazon or Barnes and Noble. If the goal is to be read, then online is the only place it’s at. Online and free, more often than not. Print is fine if you want other writers to love you. I’m sure it’s wonderful for your CV (if that’s what you’re in it for), but I would think this is a concern more for people who are in academics. But it the end your writing, wherever it is, needs to stand for itself.
There’s no point comparing the biggest, baddest print journals with a 6th-grader run online grammar catastrophe. If you want to compare print versus online, you need to compare the quality of the writing, the selectivity of the process. There are plenty of print journals that don’t wow any more than the online ones. Just because it has “review” in the name doesn’t make it any less boring. And because online is so easy, there is obviously a lot of tripe; that shouldn’t negate the quality of the fine online publications. Not to mention the reality that the biggest names sometimes publish the safest literature.
At the end of the day 99.9% of people—even people who like to read—aren’t going to buy anything other than novels and nonfiction books on Amazon or Barnes and Noble. If the goal is to be read, then online is the only place it’s at. Online and free, more often than not. Print is fine if you want other writers to love you. I’m sure it’s wonderful for your CV (if that’s what you’re in it for), but I would think this is a concern more for people who are in academics. But it the end your writing, wherever it is, needs to stand for itself.
There’s no difference in it for me. I write ALL THE TIME. I don’t care where it goes. If somebody wants it, I give it to them. In-print or on-line, it’s all the same. If I like a certain place, think I fit in, then I’ll send stuff. Publishers are like mailmen, they just distribute stuff. So, is one place more prestigious than another? I don’t know. And I don’t care. All that matters is that I get my stuff out there because I want things to change, I want to change the world, I want something else. Besides, I can’t help it. I write. I don’t worry about resumes.
There’s no difference in it for me. I write ALL THE TIME. I don’t care where it goes. If somebody wants it, I give it to them. In-print or on-line, it’s all the same. If I like a certain place, think I fit in, then I’ll send stuff. Publishers are like mailmen, they just distribute stuff. So, is one place more prestigious than another? I don’t know. And I don’t care. All that matters is that I get my stuff out there because I want things to change, I want to change the world, I want something else. Besides, I can’t help it. I write. I don’t worry about resumes.
I’m all for online literature and the magazine I co-edit just launched a new website to publish some… however, I don’t really buy the idea that online is the only place to be read. I know for myself, I read far far more literature in print than online (my eyes are dying enough already from looking at computer screens, I don’t need to do my lit reading there) and there are still lit mags out there with lots of dedicated readers.
There are other questions here too i’m sure. For example, Justin is totally correct that you can post a link on facebook and get a bunch of friends to read your piece who won’t go and buy your lit mag. At the same time, maybe you don’t always want the same readers? It would be interesting to try and find out how that works. It seems to me a lot of the online magazines have an overlapping reader base and the self-promotion of the authors is a big part of the readership (both of which are totally fine and cool things, but maybe make it less likely to find new readers).
I’m all for online literature and the magazine I co-edit just launched a new website to publish some… however, I don’t really buy the idea that online is the only place to be read. I know for myself, I read far far more literature in print than online (my eyes are dying enough already from looking at computer screens, I don’t need to do my lit reading there) and there are still lit mags out there with lots of dedicated readers.
There are other questions here too i’m sure. For example, Justin is totally correct that you can post a link on facebook and get a bunch of friends to read your piece who won’t go and buy your lit mag. At the same time, maybe you don’t always want the same readers? It would be interesting to try and find out how that works. It seems to me a lot of the online magazines have an overlapping reader base and the self-promotion of the authors is a big part of the readership (both of which are totally fine and cool things, but maybe make it less likely to find new readers).
Word, just saying I’d been thinking more about more established print places versus the new online ones or their own online versions.
How accurate do you find your stat counting on this point though? Most trackers I’ve used are horrible unreliable on the question of how much time is spent (normally by tracking too low, saying everyone was there for zero seconds). And then in the age of firefox tabs where people open a half dozen things they may or may not get back to. hard to know.
Word, just saying I’d been thinking more about more established print places versus the new online ones or their own online versions.
How accurate do you find your stat counting on this point though? Most trackers I’ve used are horrible unreliable on the question of how much time is spent (normally by tracking too low, saying everyone was there for zero seconds). And then in the age of firefox tabs where people open a half dozen things they may or may not get back to. hard to know.
I find Analytics pretty accurate. But I honestly don’t spend a lot of time on statistics. I look at it about once a week just to see what people are reading and for how long as we think about ways in which we can improve. Of all the trackers I’ve tried, Analytics gives the most accurate info but I’m sure others have other programs they use.
I find Analytics pretty accurate. But I honestly don’t spend a lot of time on statistics. I look at it about once a week just to see what people are reading and for how long as we think about ways in which we can improve. Of all the trackers I’ve tried, Analytics gives the most accurate info but I’m sure others have other programs they use.
Justin, “disingenuous” is harsher than I mean it to be, and a bad choice of words. Like you said, that kind of clarity in bios is impossible without sending a 500-word bio, which is worse. So you’re absolutely right, and in a bio as complex and accomplished as yours, just listing it with everything else is the right move.
I think you’re absolutely right though about the gamble on being in early issues of a magazine, or being the first book put out by a press, or whatever. Some of those gambles are going to pay off, and pay off big. And that’s exciting.
Justin, “disingenuous” is harsher than I mean it to be, and a bad choice of words. Like you said, that kind of clarity in bios is impossible without sending a 500-word bio, which is worse. So you’re absolutely right, and in a bio as complex and accomplished as yours, just listing it with everything else is the right move.
I think you’re absolutely right though about the gamble on being in early issues of a magazine, or being the first book put out by a press, or whatever. Some of those gambles are going to pay off, and pay off big. And that’s exciting.
not necessarily true. even doing a small print run of something you can usually at least break even if you sell half of your stock. if you get a kickass web designer to put your shit together, you’ll probably be paying a few hundred with little return at all. that being said, i feel like it’s less labor intensive to do an online lit mag. this is from someone who’s done both.
not necessarily true. even doing a small print run of something you can usually at least break even if you sell half of your stock. if you get a kickass web designer to put your shit together, you’ll probably be paying a few hundred with little return at all. that being said, i feel like it’s less labor intensive to do an online lit mag. this is from someone who’s done both.
My view of it is that writers and editors read print mags. Some writers and editors also read online mags. No one is going to argue that the screen can’t get tiring and that there isn’t some comforting magic to having something to hold in your hands. Print is nice.
But very few ‘regular’ people read things in a print and very few are willing to pay for the privilege of doing so in this new era, as evidenced by declining subscriptions and folding publications. If you want to be taken seriously by other writers and editors, there’s probably something to be said for the ‘prestige’ of print. And I agree, there are probably a variety of situations where it’s important to be taken seriously by the kind of people who think it’s only good if it’s in one of the big name journals.
Personally, I think being accessible is important. Now more so than ever. To that end, it seems to me that some of that prestige is going to waste.
My view of it is that writers and editors read print mags. Some writers and editors also read online mags. No one is going to argue that the screen can’t get tiring and that there isn’t some comforting magic to having something to hold in your hands. Print is nice.
But very few ‘regular’ people read things in a print and very few are willing to pay for the privilege of doing so in this new era, as evidenced by declining subscriptions and folding publications. If you want to be taken seriously by other writers and editors, there’s probably something to be said for the ‘prestige’ of print. And I agree, there are probably a variety of situations where it’s important to be taken seriously by the kind of people who think it’s only good if it’s in one of the big name journals.
Personally, I think being accessible is important. Now more so than ever. To that end, it seems to me that some of that prestige is going to waste.
Oh, that makes sense about your own practice. I wish every outlet did things like that. Thanks for the reply.
Oh, that makes sense about your own practice. I wish every outlet did things like that. Thanks for the reply.
This has been a helpful discussion, so thanks.
I’d like to point out that my question wasn’t whether to submit to online or print outlets.
My question was: when an outlet asks me whether I’m submitting for print or web-only publication, what does this choice mean? What’s the difference?
This has been a helpful discussion, so thanks.
I’d like to point out that my question wasn’t whether to submit to online or print outlets.
My question was: when an outlet asks me whether I’m submitting for print or web-only publication, what does this choice mean? What’s the difference?
I think in that case they’re setting up a dichotomy. In many cases, I think it’s as simple as shorter pieces tend to go to the web. Or pieces that are timely (health care reform stories?) would go to the web. But there are certainly examples where the edgier weirder stuff goes online and the formal things go to print (and I can kind of get that). I suppose for some publications the branches are run by entirely different people, so it would be hard to share the slush from one pile.
But whenever I see that I think it’s weird and can’t help but feel that it shouldn’t be that way, unless the length and style requirements are drastically different.
I think in that case they’re setting up a dichotomy. In many cases, I think it’s as simple as shorter pieces tend to go to the web. Or pieces that are timely (health care reform stories?) would go to the web. But there are certainly examples where the edgier weirder stuff goes online and the formal things go to print (and I can kind of get that). I suppose for some publications the branches are run by entirely different people, so it would be hard to share the slush from one pile.
But whenever I see that I think it’s weird and can’t help but feel that it shouldn’t be that way, unless the length and style requirements are drastically different.
i actually feel like there could be more potential for impermanence online than in print.
of course i love print and i printed two issues of a zine because i wanted to make something i could hold in my hands and think was beautiful. we distributed in stores all over the country and had release parties in austin, etc. got rid of like 300+ copies, but in the three weeks i’ve had an online journal thing going, i’ve had way more response and most likely more readers as well.
obviously both are small potatoes compared to a big print journal, but there you go.
i actually feel like there could be more potential for impermanence online than in print.
of course i love print and i printed two issues of a zine because i wanted to make something i could hold in my hands and think was beautiful. we distributed in stores all over the country and had release parties in austin, etc. got rid of like 300+ copies, but in the three weeks i’ve had an online journal thing going, i’ve had way more response and most likely more readers as well.
obviously both are small potatoes compared to a big print journal, but there you go.
i said exactly the opposite of what i meant in that first sentence. i feel like print could be more impermanent than the web.
maybe it doesn’t seem like that now, but things are being done to ensure that things don’t exactly disappear from the internet as they once did. i think in the future the internet will probably be a very stable place to publish things. whereas print has a limited number of copies (often quite limited) and disappears over time.
i said exactly the opposite of what i meant in that first sentence. i feel like print could be more impermanent than the web.
maybe it doesn’t seem like that now, but things are being done to ensure that things don’t exactly disappear from the internet as they once did. i think in the future the internet will probably be a very stable place to publish things. whereas print has a limited number of copies (often quite limited) and disappears over time.
i agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of what ‘regular’ people want.
i agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of what ‘regular’ people want.
reynard i think there is merit to what you are saying.
it will always be easier/cheaper to house 0’s and 1’s than a 4 story mansion of books across a thousand cities.
plus you can find shit i wrote back in 94/95 on the internet. i had no clue at the time that my rantings on firewalls would still be published on the web in 2009.
reynard i think there is merit to what you are saying.
it will always be easier/cheaper to house 0’s and 1’s than a 4 story mansion of books across a thousand cities.
plus you can find shit i wrote back in 94/95 on the internet. i had no clue at the time that my rantings on firewalls would still be published on the web in 2009.
Oh i’m just saying that any one can make their point with metrics if they want to.
highlight the variables that assist your end result and hide the variables that don’t.
at least that’s my experience with stats/metrics in the IT world.
Oh i’m just saying that any one can make their point with metrics if they want to.
highlight the variables that assist your end result and hide the variables that don’t.
at least that’s my experience with stats/metrics in the IT world.
really? i tried to find my old angelfire pages from around that timeframe and couldn’t find shit – was kinda sad. but it really seems like things will be different in the future. i am hopeful about it. i’m glad you are too.
really? i tried to find my old angelfire pages from around that timeframe and couldn’t find shit – was kinda sad. but it really seems like things will be different in the future. i am hopeful about it. i’m glad you are too.
http://www.greatcircle.com/firewalls/mhonarc/firewalls.199508/msg00081.html
and then there is the issue of PLA i wrote back during my days of nefarious computer use but i can’t post that because it is getting websensed at work.
but that was back in 95 too.
http://www.greatcircle.com/firewalls/mhonarc/firewalls.199508/msg00081.html
and then there is the issue of PLA i wrote back during my days of nefarious computer use but i can’t post that because it is getting websensed at work.
but that was back in 95 too.
hey alan,
i think it really depends on the journal in question.
i read submissions for a magazine this summer, and the web and print editions had different aesthetics altogether, though i would say there was no drop-off in quality from one to the other. i’m pretty sure pindeldyboz’s guidelines, too, say something like the work online can/should be edgier than print content. i guess what’s best to do is to familiarize with yourself with wherever you’re submitting, both in print and online.
hey alan,
i think it really depends on the journal in question.
i read submissions for a magazine this summer, and the web and print editions had different aesthetics altogether, though i would say there was no drop-off in quality from one to the other. i’m pretty sure pindeldyboz’s guidelines, too, say something like the work online can/should be edgier than print content. i guess what’s best to do is to familiarize with yourself with wherever you’re submitting, both in print and online.
Depending on the modes of delivery. Doing something like ISSU or Scridb, like Ocho does, costs less than having a dedicated website. I was also linking to most digital copies of print projects costs .99 cents or, perhap, 2.99 (depending) versus a more hardline 14.99 or 16.99 new.
Now, yes, comparing a print-run versus a website designed from scratch….
But I was more comparing print-on-demand versus single digital issues…
Depending on the modes of delivery. Doing something like ISSU or Scridb, like Ocho does, costs less than having a dedicated website. I was also linking to most digital copies of print projects costs .99 cents or, perhap, 2.99 (depending) versus a more hardline 14.99 or 16.99 new.
Now, yes, comparing a print-run versus a website designed from scratch….
But I was more comparing print-on-demand versus single digital issues…