In an attempt to begin articulating what effective writing looks like at the present moment, Teilo and I have formulated three basic guidelines. They're meant to start a conversation more than anything, and are not meant to be overly prescriptive. However, we feel that following them as closely as possible will eliminate many of the weaknesses we have observed in the writing submitted to our respective literary magazines. In no particular order, they are: - Subjectivity, as far as it illuminates common experience, can be more effective than objectivity. - Intertextuality can be an addition, but never the crux. - The form of a work of art should never become its content. Please feel free to comment. Both affirmation and disagreement are necessary cogs in the engine of any progression.
I don't want to say I told you so, but: I told you so! By "you," of course, I mean those who still endorse the lingering perception that online literary magazines are of a lower pedigree than print magazines, regardless of content and track record. There are a number of pros and cons with both mediums, and I think calls for the end of print culture and premature and hyperbolic, but this article indicates that some of the more substantial pros of online literary magazines are finally starting to catch on with the general public. Online literary magazines were in existence long before The Writers Block and The Oral Tradition, of course, but I still think that the burgeoning community of writers, artists, and editors who have known about the strength and potential for online literary venues for years and years should be entitled to a pat on the back and at least one "I told you so" to those for whom this article is news. Thanks for posting!
ReplyDelete