Well, this last is true, of course, but one would hope that To Hell with Publishing will include a substantial element of online activity, as do US McSweeney's and innovative UK publisher Salt. Green says:
If Laurence Johns was truly interested in bringing readers to writers, he'd save himself money, and inevitable failure, by publishing those stories in a form accessible to readers who do spend at least some of their time "in front of a computer" but are nevertheless "people who love reading."My reactions to this are mixed. Having once published a print literary magazine (in the days just before literature took off on the web) I have always said precisely that, that I would never do it that way again now that there is the web. But then, as Johns says, people do like a book to hold (and take to the bath), don't we? And how much of what we read online is literature, the primary thing, as opposed to debates about literature? And isn't it actual books which are generating discussion online? And as for community: well, I love this online literary community, but isn't it primarily a community of readers, rather than of Johns' concept of readers and writers interacting - and isn't it in the main reacting to the output of the mainstream publishers which, as we have established, are instrumental in suppressing our writers' most innovative and challenging work?
In the midst of all this comes news today of the possibility of an Arts Council-funding threat to one of our longest-running print literary mags, the London Magazine, which DJ Taylor, echoing Johns, claims 'prints work of genuine merit that would otherwise have difficulty finding a publisher'. Well, again, I have mixed feelings. Having once been published by the London Magazine I have a reflex reaction of loyalty, and I'm with Taylor when he points out that it's outrageous that such a project should suffer - nay, be killed off - for the sake of the Olympics. On the other hand, I have to say that the story I had printed there, and indeed any of the stories I have had printed in traditional print lit mags, have never had the kind of international attention given to those I've had published in an online magazine.
I can't help thinking that there has to be a new model (which maybe the London Magazine could embrace), a blending of the virtual and concrete literary worlds. I suppose it remains to be seen whether Johns' venture will be one answer.
17 comments:
I think its an artistic rather than a distribution decision to publish a small magazine. You could do opera on the web, for that matter, but would probably choose not to, despite it's greater exposure. As you know too well, the main difficulties about producing a print-based magazine aren't the end results, which are wonderful things to have and to hold, but all the non-literary elements: dealing with printers, typesetting (or its computer equivalent), invoicing etc. The web's great for this kind of thing - blogs - but I'm not so sure it offers the "commitment" that a magazine does. That said, London Magazine is an institution, and probably quite a complacent one at that. Such things deserve a shake now and then, but given that literature gets such a small part of Arts Council and lottery funding it seems a little harsh, to say the least.
I was astounded to read about the size of the grant given to The London Magazine.
It made me sad to think of the good small magazines that have had to fold over the last few years becasue the owners/editors had no such support.
I am Assistant Editor of Cadenza Magazine. We get no grants, carry no advertising. The magazine is utterly independent, funded by subscriptions and competition entries alone. We pay ourselves not one penny for what we do.
yes, it's a labour of love becasue we believe in what we're doing... and we are applying for a small slice of Arts Council money to underpin the magazine, and help us to pay contributors.
I know The London Magazine is an institution...it has done a wonderful job.
But should it really take up all that precious funding? Maybe it could be cut just a little, and shared out.
or is that a hopelessly naive thing to expect?
Vanessa
I think rather than the funding being cut for the London Mag there should simply be more funding for other mags.
The reason the London Mag has been so well funded (in cf to other mags) is that, as DJ Taylor indicates, ACE was prepared to pay the editor. This is only fair: as you seem to indicate, most lit mags fold because, although ACE is often prepared to pay for printing, production and marketing, they expect editors and publishers to run lit mags as purely a labour of love. Yet running a lit mag is of course a huge commitment, and running a print lit mag - dealing with printers and designers, publicity and marketing, orders, paperwork and accounts - can be a full-time job, which is precisely what the short-story mag Metropolitan turned into for me. (My two fellow publishers were in full-time work and simply couldn't take on the same bulk of mag work.) I had to give it up to earn some money (and get back to writing). I wrote to ACE spelling this out, and Lit Director Gary McEown was very sympathetic, but I don't think the situation has much changed, mainly I think because the purse for literature has always just been too small.
As I say, I think we need a new model, though I'm not sure yet how to get my head around it. Seems to me that if the internet can do away with all that work and expense, then not only does the job of publishing become lighter, some of the ACE money could be redirected to pay editors for the work they do. But then again, as I say, do we really want to do away with print lit mags altogether?
And then there wouldn't be this problem of choice if, as Taylor says, the funding priorities could be changed...
Another thought, which cuts against my point above: there's also the fact that the assumption that lit mags need subsidy feeds reinforces the idea that callenging or innovative literature is unprofitable, indeed unsaleable. Salt's USP is that they reject this notion, and have set out to be commercially successful with challenging literature. (Although, ironically, they have been rewarded for this with a large ACE grant).
But is it not the case in reality that challenging literature finds it harder to find a home than 'easier' work anyway? The market is geared to profit. Safe bets make profits... innovative work is a risk. (And Salt is doing a fantastic job!)
But isnt it true that apart from the INternet, of which more below, the small presses are the only place where most new writers can get a toehold in the market? Isn't that worth ACE support? (I know your answer, I think... I'm thinking as I type)
I dont really understand how the need for subsidy lead to the assumption that such work doesnt pay?
You could argue that because small presses dont take adverts, they are ignorant commercially. (I have just thumbed through a back copy of The London Magazine...many adverts, presumably paid for...in addition to the generous ACE grant. )
I cannot speak for other small press lit mags, but I don't think our subscribers really want to pay to read adverts...we want to use every available page for carefully selected fiction, poetry, and editorial/features aimed at giving writers valuable and relevant information.
One thing that the Internet has done, and for which I will not thank it, is that it has encouraged growing writers to accept that they ought not be paid for their work. That exposure is somehow 'enough'.
A million 'ezines' are out there, invented by anyone who feels like creating a site in addition to the more established and professional ones. Read the 'writers guidelines' and so many seem to be saying the same thing... 'we cannot pay you... the fame of being seen here will have to be enough'
Of course, there are 'good ones' and 'less good ones' ...their currency is ill defined.
Ezines/costs...
I don't know how relevant this is in this discussion... but a couple of years ago I started an ezine for writing from rehabs, somewhere where the raw voices of those whose lives have been touched by addicition could be heard.
I pay for the design. I pay for the website. It is updated for nothing by the designer as her contribution to the project.
I could have applied for a local grant from a Brighton Arts organisation... but had submissions very fast from the USA, India and elsewhere in the UK, to support the writers from rehab. Four issues later, submissions come in from everywhere, and that means I dont qualify for a grant from anywhere, apparently.... and so far, I plough what I get paid... the odd £40 for an anthology contribution, little bits of winnings..back in.
Its a drain.
How can I let these guys down? I do it for love and out of respect for the tough journey these guys are on. And that has to be mirrored in many many other concerns, both web and print.
It's a never-ending call for cash... and it will never come!
Vanessa
"I love this online literary community, but isn't it primarily a community of readers, rather than of Johns' concept of readers and writers interacting"
That's a good point, although I think the situation is changing. More readers and writers are interacting online, and I think this will only increase. Which is not to say that face-to-face interactions are unimportant.
Isn't that shocking? That alone amongst the arts literature doesn't get paid for the real costs? Imagine a theatre running like that! Had we applied for a grant for Lamport Court though I was v. specific - it should go to the authors! What broke my back in many ways was when we tried to up the quality of the magazine the costs quadrupled, (and... here's the rub, the sales went down!)
Dan: yes, I do think this situation is changing. I thought it after I'd posted and funnily enough I then came across this article about writers' blogs:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1591133.ece
Vanessa: Sorry if I seemed inconsistent. I too was thinking as I wrote. My point about saleability: well, if as you say challenging lit is riskier, then by definition it's not so easy to sell, and this is of course why mainstream publishers (sensibly from a commercial point of view) tend to avoid it. However, as I've said elsewhere on this blog there are big holes in present-day marketing philosophy,in that it's based on the assumption that people don't want anything challenging. And even it's that true, that they don't, as I've also said elsewhere, with the right techniques you can sell anything (water as snake-oil, even). This is the job of the alternative presses and small mags, to sell what the big guns can't or won't, and why it's a huge job requiring extra flair and energy. And in fact huge sales don't always matter - what's important is that the lit is out there, seeding new ideas and forms to enter the cultural consciousness.
And this is why of course it needs funding. It's also why social perceptions of lit funding need to change. There seems to be a belief that because challenging lit is harder to sell (and therefore needs funding) it's not worth selling (and therefore not worth funding). (This is what I was trying to get at.) I suspect that this is what's behind the historical small ACE purse for lit, but the recent ACE grant to Salt seems proof of a more enlightened attitude.
One of my previous posts on this issue is:
http://fictionbitch.blogspot.com/2006/10/selling-words.html
Adrian and Vanessa, I know exactly what you're going through! It can be soul-destroying - and the only thing that keeps you going is your passion (which funders damn well take for granted).
Sorry that first link didn't come out: Go to TimesOnline and type in 'To meet the author, right click'.
It's an article about how author Jasper Fforde is using his site to interact with his readers.
Reading my post back, it sounds like a bleat.
It's only half a bleat. Being honest, I love what I do for Cadenza, because the opportunity to be involved with a lit mag, to read for a quality competition, for example, is a hugely valuable experience. I take it very seriously and know that it is 'feeding me' in many ways.
And my ezine. I love doing it. I have 'met' some extraordinary people via their subs. I get lots of affirmation from feedback... the warm'n'fuzzy bit!
It is really lovely to have this opportunity to discuss these things... thanks for your blog. Good place.
And I look forward hugely to the anthology!
v
Yeah... it would have been pretty hard to have this discussion in this way before the advent of the web!
I think we have to accept that funding lit magazines is difficult for any funder, really. Little magazines are all the same - and all different of course. I've been interested in seeing new models for funding literature, Index in the North West, Save our Short Story, New Writing Partnership in Norwich, funding publishers like Salt, various festivals. I think the internet and easy routes to production for small publishers are all good things; but do rely on editors' precious time, energy and money!
Yes, this last point - re editors' time, energy and expense - is important and, as I say, does seem to be the one which is always overlooked. I think Vanessa's point about the payment of contributors is also important. At Metropolitan we always found ACE in agreement about the importance of paying contributors, but it's true that one problem with the web is that it does create a culture in which non-payment for writing is taken for granted.
I think I read the final copy of Metropolitan after only just discovering it...is there anything similar on the go now? I would be interested to know.
I don't know of any mags devoted to the short story. Staple closed not long after we did.
Too true, Alan
Post a Comment