"Scenes from the Literary Blacklist;" Former Guernica Editor interviewed; in praise of self-publishing; "The Worst Magazine in America;" publishing from prison; small press updates; and more
Kudos to Lyle C. May for broaching the subject of incarcerated writers. Those we've published in the past contacted us by snail mail because email is not available to them. It requires extra work on the part of the editor(s), but can sometimes be very worth the trouble. In one anthology we did of "Outsiders" we pdf'd the hand-written submission and put it in the book like that because there was an element of art to it. Then came the "don't you know what this guy is IN for" email complaints. Another aspect of this sometimes fraught source of talent.
I don't think most editors would go through the bother. Here's where I would usually go off into one of my anti-elitist-sheltered-life-snob rants but I've been criticized for foul language so I'll just keep my fucking mouth shut.
If writers rely on self publishing, how does a reader find them? Massive social media marketing which is just more time consuming content for readers to sort through. Print literary magazines have become scarce, so a reader has to become savvy online to even find the journals. Self publishing will probably lead to more splintering of available literature for readers. I don’t have a solution for this, but it leaves me very pessimistic for writers and readers.
I am deeply concerned at so many peoples fear at "uncomfortable ideas" being censored because of what happened at Guernica. The piece pulled wasn't problematic because it presented uncomfortable ideas (in fact, I think it made a lot of people feel better. they too can feel 'uncomfortable' and 'agonized' about whats happening in Palestine while propping up their governments complicitness and feel better about themselves because they do feel the "complicated nature, even though they do nothing about it. They can sit in a nebulous space without drawing a clear and solid line *against genocide and war crimes*). It was a problem because this kind of viewpoint is consistently and obnoxiously centered in conflicts like this.
I read a satirical meme years ago that said something to the content of going into false wars so we can make movies about our own traumatized soldiers for killing people we sent them there to kill. ie we focus on our own pain, a pain of our own countries making and make it center stage, while discounting, dismissing and sweeping away the pain of the people targeted. I struggle with the concept of navel gazing but if there was ever an indignant response to a piece being pulled, the one to guernica is one I would call navel gazing under the mantle of "censorship!"
More space doesn't need to be given to the Israeli voices that make any apologia, soft or not, over a violent apartheid because they've been everywhere for decades. The same goes with Western voices over afghnistan or 9/11 or whatever proxy war we start. That narrative only serves a genocidal machine.
There is a huge difference between censorship of uncomfortable ideas and resistance to dehumanization, and the literary world isn't the only space that doesn't seem to have a good grasp on this.
And being censored for personal vendettas are quite different than say, whats happening to P diddy, a person who should have been dropped summarily everywhere in society a few decades ago. Certainly there are areas to grapple with but I find that the todays grappling often involves pearl clutching about not being able to maintain the historical status quo rather than drilling down into the concept of personal vendettas winning out over actual balance.
When "The New Yorker" published Amanda Gorman's awful poem, I was pretty certain identity had trumped literary quality, probably not for the first or last time.
I agree with Robsinson’s point. But it applies to a number of reputable publications. I recently read an NYT article that misquotes an NYT article from 50 years ago because the writer wanted to tell an identity-based.story instead of noting that the original article disagreed with how he portrayed it. As a result of this and other”flubs,” i barely trust anyone’s literature review sections.
Ironically, I could barely get through Robinson’s article and just skimmed it.
The posts from the editor of ELJ Editions are both touching and inspiring. Brava to her! I sincerely hope that the editions survive.
Kudos to Lyle C. May for broaching the subject of incarcerated writers. Those we've published in the past contacted us by snail mail because email is not available to them. It requires extra work on the part of the editor(s), but can sometimes be very worth the trouble. In one anthology we did of "Outsiders" we pdf'd the hand-written submission and put it in the book like that because there was an element of art to it. Then came the "don't you know what this guy is IN for" email complaints. Another aspect of this sometimes fraught source of talent.
I don't think most editors would go through the bother. Here's where I would usually go off into one of my anti-elitist-sheltered-life-snob rants but I've been criticized for foul language so I'll just keep my fucking mouth shut.
If writers rely on self publishing, how does a reader find them? Massive social media marketing which is just more time consuming content for readers to sort through. Print literary magazines have become scarce, so a reader has to become savvy online to even find the journals. Self publishing will probably lead to more splintering of available literature for readers. I don’t have a solution for this, but it leaves me very pessimistic for writers and readers.
Excellent, thought-provoking material as usual, Becky! 🙏
I am deeply concerned at so many peoples fear at "uncomfortable ideas" being censored because of what happened at Guernica. The piece pulled wasn't problematic because it presented uncomfortable ideas (in fact, I think it made a lot of people feel better. they too can feel 'uncomfortable' and 'agonized' about whats happening in Palestine while propping up their governments complicitness and feel better about themselves because they do feel the "complicated nature, even though they do nothing about it. They can sit in a nebulous space without drawing a clear and solid line *against genocide and war crimes*). It was a problem because this kind of viewpoint is consistently and obnoxiously centered in conflicts like this.
I read a satirical meme years ago that said something to the content of going into false wars so we can make movies about our own traumatized soldiers for killing people we sent them there to kill. ie we focus on our own pain, a pain of our own countries making and make it center stage, while discounting, dismissing and sweeping away the pain of the people targeted. I struggle with the concept of navel gazing but if there was ever an indignant response to a piece being pulled, the one to guernica is one I would call navel gazing under the mantle of "censorship!"
More space doesn't need to be given to the Israeli voices that make any apologia, soft or not, over a violent apartheid because they've been everywhere for decades. The same goes with Western voices over afghnistan or 9/11 or whatever proxy war we start. That narrative only serves a genocidal machine.
There is a huge difference between censorship of uncomfortable ideas and resistance to dehumanization, and the literary world isn't the only space that doesn't seem to have a good grasp on this.
And being censored for personal vendettas are quite different than say, whats happening to P diddy, a person who should have been dropped summarily everywhere in society a few decades ago. Certainly there are areas to grapple with but I find that the todays grappling often involves pearl clutching about not being able to maintain the historical status quo rather than drilling down into the concept of personal vendettas winning out over actual balance.
When "The New Yorker" published Amanda Gorman's awful poem, I was pretty certain identity had trumped literary quality, probably not for the first or last time.
Robinson is...a fine one to talk. He's hardly a shining example of accuracy in journalism.
I agree with Robsinson’s point. But it applies to a number of reputable publications. I recently read an NYT article that misquotes an NYT article from 50 years ago because the writer wanted to tell an identity-based.story instead of noting that the original article disagreed with how he portrayed it. As a result of this and other”flubs,” i barely trust anyone’s literature review sections.
Ironically, I could barely get through Robinson’s article and just skimmed it.