spleen

the lit mag rant

July 24, 2002 – 10:07 pm

Things that I think fatally undermine online literary magazines:

1. Rampant nepotism and favoritism (read: in-breeding)
2. Lack of literary standards (relates to number 1)
3. Lack of any real knowledge of literature (relates to number 2)
4. Poor design and content management
5. Preference of the dark, sexual and/or shocking over actual good poetry
6. Lack of professionalism with regard to intra-staff dynamics, authorial communication and the like
7. Lack of freshness and variation in all areas of the publication

Stirring, the magazine I worked for at one time, is guilty of nearly all the above. Stirring epitomizes for me everything I would never want in a literary magazine. It has a static and uncompelling design, largely flat and uncompelling content, and a poor management strategy (in which the fiction and poetry staffs never communicate, design is controlled by one person who knows little about design, and titles (such as my title, senior fiction editor (Huh? How the hell did I become a fiction editor?)) are arbitrarily handed out to friends and likable writers). The magazine's senior editor is a 21 year-old poet whose knowledge of literature is limited, and who wastes far too much time lamenting the fact that she's not a famous poet yet (she's 21, for christ's sake). Worst of all, the magazine caters to its favorites — it seems to almost indiscriminately publish writers it likes, mostly friends of the editor, resulting in a highly mixed bag of one or two good pieces per issue awash in a sea of literary mediocrity and awfulness. Many (maybe most) literary magazines are guilty of this last point, of course, but this doesn't make it acceptable or right.

In short, magazines like Stirring are little more than a glorified version of the zines we all used to make on photocopiers in the pre-web age, the ones in which we'd include poems and lyrics by all our friends. Those zines made us look so important in high school.

Let's learn from Stirring's mistakes:

1. A good online lit mag does not engage in nepotism and favoritism — it publishes and keeps its eyes open for fresh, quality work. And it never, never publishes work by its current editors.
2. It establishes and maintains a high standard, both for the work it will accept and for the presentation of that work.
3. It aggressively seeks out new writers and artists.
4. It employs a staff of individuals knowledgeable in literature and online publication - not just writers, not just good writers, and not just good writers who read. Individuals knowledgeable in literature and online publication.
5. It acknowledges that presentation is a crucial part of the online literary experience, and works constantly to present a dynamic, accessible and beautiful magazine.
6. Its first and foremost concern is the location and publication of high quality work.
7. Its system of compiling and managing content is methodical, efficient and open to comment and criticism by staff.
8. Nobody gets total say over any one aspect of the publication - the staff structure is bent toward equality and dialogue.
9. The entire staff actually gets to fucking meet one another. It's such a basic thing.
10. The entire staff meets on a regular basis to discuss the state of affairs and to suggest ideas and improvements.
11. The magazine does not bore the staff. The moment it bores the staff, it's a sickly magazine.

None of this seems like very much to ask, in my opinion. Most of it is just good business and publication sense, and remember, the restrictions here are different — an online magazine doesn't have to worry about the cost of ink, press time or incorrectable errors. Anyone who has ever worked in publishing or the document industry would probably acknowledge these things as quite basic.

That said, name me three online magazines that adhere to these standards, or that at least aren't guilty of the seven deadly sins I've outlined above.