30th Apr 2008
What to make of the airing of literary dirty laundry?
After reading Watching Civility Devolve in which the editor of Fence spars with a contributor over a missing copy of the journal and ends up in a playground dispute, I had all sorts of feelings raised about submitting to literary journals as a writer. And, over and above the feelings it stirred up in me, I kept wondering why the editor would want to share this email correspondence on their web site. It didn’t leave me with a positive impression of the journal. Was it supposed to be clever? to show the asinity of the contributors? to show the day to day grind of editing a literary journal? I’m sympathetic to all that as I worked on a literary journal and work as an editor, but reading the email exchange leaves me with a rancid taste in my mouth.
Then today I read the Virginia Quarterly Review’s comments that readers of submissions have made. Keep in mind that these “readers” are not readers of the journal, but readers of submissions to the journal that rate and review them in some fashion before they are mostly rejected. Is the airing of this to show how bad most writers are? how cliched? how clever the readers are? Because I’m left with the impression that the readers are mostly interested in impressing each other with their descriptions of terrible writing. Again, I’m left feeling like I ate something spoiled.
It would seem to me that when we operate in the gift economy (that is opposed to the corporate economy), where art is essentially a gift, and offered for (mostly) free, the art could be treated with respect regardless of whether or not one likes it.
After reading Watching Civility Devolve in which the editor of Fence spars with a contributor over a missing copy of the journal and ends up in a playground dispute, I had all sorts of feelings raised about submitting to literary journals as a writer. And, over and above the feelings it stirred up in me, I kept wondering why the editor would want to share this email correspondence on their web site. It didn’t leave me with a positive impression of the journal. Was it supposed to be clever? to show the asinity of the contributors? to show the day to day grind of editing a literary journal? I’m sympathetic to all that as I worked on a literary journal and work as an editor, but reading the email exchange leaves me with a rancid taste in my mouth.
Then today I read the Virginia Quarterly Review’s comments that readers of submissions have made. Keep in mind that these “readers” are not readers of the journal, but readers of submissions to the journal that rate and review them in some fashion before they are mostly rejected. Is the airing of this to show how bad most writers are? how cliched? how clever the readers are? Because I’m left with the impression that the readers are mostly interested in impressing each other with their descriptions of terrible writing. Again, I’m left feeling like I ate something spoiled.
It would seem to me that when we operate in the gift economy (that is opposed to the corporate economy), where art is essentially a gift, and offered for (mostly) free, the art could be treated with respect regardless of whether or not one likes it.
Posted in notes | 11 Comments »
