An Editor’s Responsibility
July 24, 2004
There is a small-scale discussion on one of the mailing lists I am subscribed to that is circling around the sometimes-incestous relationship between publishers, editors, and writers (stemming in part from a pointer to foetry).
In my latest (and likely last) contribution, I contended that while it is easy to publish authors one knows and types of work one is familiar with, the hard work of editing– supposing one wants to do a good job– is to go beyond that inclination and try to open one’s eyes and ears as much as possible to new and different voices. Unfortunately, I was greeted with a patronizing “that’s the way it is, little magazines are niche publications, readers want to know what to expect, life goes on” response rather than any discussion of what others might see as an editor’s responsibility.
I couldn’t disagree more with this kind of lazy assessment, though it is certainly representative of the stagnation to be found in many publications large and small. An editor should be publishing things they like… but it is the job of the editor to be open to the possibility of new voices and work for their readers. If a reader knows exactly what to expect from a publication– whether it be “yet another lyric of natural epiphany” or “just another fractured, imagistic pomo piece”– then that publication is effectively dead. In the vast majority of cases, the actions taken by editors that result in a repetition of familiar names and styles in their publications are not sinister in motive. Editors get tired. They get lazy. Many start out without any real concept of what their obligations are. Some get into the business just to promote a narrow range of what they like.
My patronizing friend was right when he contended that most publications start off with grand aspirations about breaking new ground only to fall back into a pattern of producing works that are largely similar in tone or construction. But the fact that this happens so often has nothing to do with whether it should happen, and doesn’t have to mean we should throw our hands up and write it off as “the way things are.” I wholeheartedly concur that we should support the publications we feel are doing their best without giving one inch those that wish to take the easy way out and spout jaded cliches about the way things are.
By and large, readers (outside the realm of Limericks International) don’t really know what they want. The only thing they know is that they want something good. The definition of what is good is co-constructed, a product of the collaboration between writers, editors, and readers. The fundamental job of the editor is to give the readers what they didn’t– and couldn’t know– they wanted until after they’d seen it. I know from experience that this is hard work. But that’s how our art evolves, and while we may quibble about what proportion of that evolution is good or bad, it is only through this process that any growth can occur.
Tags:
Publishing
All me-stream all the time.
content rss
July 28th, 2004 at 3:44 am
Chris,
Agreed they get lazy, but there is also the matter of what gets submitted–certainly, in small mags, such as the one I work on, in which the editors get no pay and have to do it all out of love, we’re faced with the fact that each day has only so many hours…and, on the net, any attempt to promote the damned thing is often howled down as ’spam’ (which is ridiculous, IMO, when there is no money exchanged and the ads are specifically targeted to audiences that claim to have an interest in poetry)…so instead of money, they often get flak. It’s taken the better portion of 2 years just to get to the point where I don’t have to actively solicit for poetry publications…which is to say nothing of prose, which is oftentimes generated by either myself or my co-editor, or pieces that were re-written extensively enough to merit a co-author mention (though there never is one). I did want to hop on here and say, though, that I appreciate your views on the editor/writer/reader relationship…it’s a complex one.
One area that I think very important is the area of perceived ‘legitimacy,’ because I think that’s a balancing act: writers want to have the sense that their words are going to be around for a while, but then again, there’s this contrarian undercurrent to many writers that shies away from too much legitimacy…the old ‘rooting for the underdog’ routine. I think this especially relevant in terms of ‘net publication–and it’s an area that a lot of editors haven’t quite managed to get their heads around. For myself, it’s all learning, straight from scratch, and sometimes it seems like the real goals of the publication evolve in much the same manner a good poem does–often, we don’t know where a thing is going until it’s already well on the way there. Seems like the goals themselves are often contingent–co-constructed, as you term it–and can and should change as a publication evolves.
Then again, there’s the simple matter of quality…something that after a few millenia of debate, we really haven’t articulated terribly well in the arena of poetry. That shouldn’t change…though it should be willing to buck a reader’s expectations when the situation calls for it.
In any case, good thoughts, and it’s a pity more of these sorts of forums don’t discuss it any more intelligently than they do. There’s real potential for change on this front, but there’s a lot of thought to be put into the matter before that potential is realized. Forums’d be a good way in…unfortunately, they never seem to quite work up to their true potential in this respect. I chalk it up to a moderator’s need to balance civility with real, nitty-gritty discussion (some might say shit-fights) over what matters.
Thanks again–Gene