|
I think Joe raises some good questions re the mechanix of submissions. I
also want to raise the bar on his question to publishers of whether or not
an online journal publication trumps print publication:
1. In what way is the Online publication and reader experience different
than or similar to print publication?
I suspect many of us would say it's much easier to get printed online, as it
is conversely (at least for simple web formats) much easier for publishers
to accept and publish digitally submitted work.
a. Is an online editor taking less risks (financially, intellectually,
etc.) than an editor of a printed publication?
b. As a consequence of these 'ease' factors - given the ephemeral
(liquid, fugitive?) nature of online publication - do readers also take
online publications less seriously, with less gravitas, than those in
printed formats?
c. Is printed publication going to remain the ultimate signature of any
work that is going to survive - in some solid sense - as the most genuine,
enduring, powerful sign in the culture of poetry? Or is online publication
going to say goodbye to "print on pulp" in a way comparable to written
culture saying goodbye to oral literatures. Homer you sing real well, but I
want to read the papyrus!
Or are we going to witness a negotiation among the two mediums (virtual
and concrete) maybe in the way we go back and forth between radio and
television /one not x-ing out the other?
2. On the question of editing - to throw the light on editors instead of
writiers - I would like someone to query editors (online and in print) to
see how many are what I call "active editors" and how many are "passive".
a. "Active" editors actually engage the work - question lines, choice of
words, etc. - and work with poets to achieve (ideally) a more realized poem
and/or series of poems in mag or book.
b. "Passive" editors go yes or no to a submission and rarely make
suggestions of any sort - accepting or rejecting the "authority" of the
author. A kind of consumer position, I think. The editor takes it off the
shelf into his "basket" or goes on to the next shelf.
In asking the question, I think it also important to see if an editor's
decision to be passive is an economic one or philosophical one. The
financial position an indication that there is not enough reward from sale
to justify the time. Or, in the case of the "active" editor, given time
resources - in terms of making writing - what kind of world view does that
editorial position represent. ("Existential and improvisatory" or,
alternatively, editorially coercive. Editorially we "might make something
better" or we "will make your work correspond to our editorial point of
view.")
I raise these questions - particularly the ones re Online versus print media
- not only because I think they are of value, but also I believe we are in
a genuinely transitional time, indeed as serious as going from unique or
minimally copied medieval manuscripts to Renaissance metal type and multiple
printed and broadly distributed book editions, including etchings of images.
If - as I recently did - you look at the medieval manuscript of Euclid's
works and compare it to the printed 14th century version, one can only
imagine the conservatives of the time lamenting the loss of the authenticity
of the scribe's hand, the feel of velum, and a kind of intimacy that printed
books only gradually achieved, but never quite as well.
I believe we have gone into another one of those moments.
Ironically, personally I seem to be addicted to both mediums!
Stephen V
Blog: http://stephenvincent.durationpress.com
> Since there seem to be some editors of print journals on this list, I'm using
> the Submissions thread as an opportunity to make a couple serious suggestions
> which I think would make things easier for everyone.
>
> When editors specify that they want only unpublished pieces, I wish they
> would also indicate whether they consider the inclusion of a piece only in an
> on line journal as publication. The answer isn't at all obvious: I've asked
> three different editors about this, and their answers were "Yes," "No," and
> "Maybe."
>
> The stipulation to include an envelope with sufficient postage for return of
> manuscripts has been made obsolete by technology. Few authors laboriously
> type up manuscripts any more: they write them on a computer and then either
> print off copies themselves or make them at a copy center, either of which is
> almost always cheaper than buying envelopes and returm postage. (I'm talking
> here about poetry manuscripts; manuscripts of books and long articles may have
> enough work sunk into them to justify the writer's wanting them back, but for
> a handful of poems, it's almost always easier and cheaper just to print or
> copy them off each time you need new copies.) The standard procedure should
> be that poetry manuscripts aren't returned whatever the decision is on
> accepting them. This would save a lot of time and effort for both editors and
> writers, who would no longer have to deal with envelopes and stamps and
> international coupons.
>
> Even if a journal doesn't accept email submissions, I wish it would state in
> the submission guidelines that acceptance/rejection notices will be sent by
> email if the author includes an email address in the cover letter. Again,
> this would mean less fiddling with envelopes and stamps for everyone, and it
> would make it easier for editors to keep track of who they've sent the notices
> to, since they could keep copies in their sent mail file.
>
> Chris Hamilton-Emery wrote, "Perhaps the most frustrating thing for
> publishers is receiving manuscripts which clearly donšt fit their lists,
> addressed 'To whom it may concern,' or 'Dear Editor.' Sending the wrong
> material to someone you cannot be bothered to discover the name of and
> expecting some response other than the bin would be testing providence in the
> best of circumstances." I have seen this eminently sensible advice also
> given by other editors; it's puzzling and irritating, then, that so many
> journals in their submission guidelines advise contributors to send their work
> to "Editor ...", and that the information in both the print copies and in any
> associated web sites of most print poetry journals makes it difficult, and
> sometimes impossible, to figure out exactly who that editor is. I wish
> editors would take their own advice and put clearly and prominently in their
> printed and on-line submission guidelines the name of the person to whom
> submissions should be addressed.
>
>
> =====================================
> Jon Corelis [log in to unmask]
>
> www.geocities.com/joncpoetics
> =====================================
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
|
