15 Jun 2010

How Do Literary Journals Survive?

By Jeff Sparrow
It's not the internet that threatens little magazines and journals, writes Overland editor Jeff Sparrow, it's the waning of communities of readers
Contrary to popular reports, the literary journal is not dead. Jeff Sparrow is the editor of Overland, the Melbourne based literary journal which is available to paid subscribers in print, and free to all comers online. We asked Jeff to contribute to our series on independent media outlets in Australia. We asked him how a journal like Overland confronts the technological and corporate transformation of the media environment.

I edit Overland, a literary journal founded in 1954, and due to publish its two hundredth edition later this year.

We're lucky enough to have been shielded, to some extent at least, from the slow-moving hurricane currently wreaking havoc across the media landscape. "Little magazines", almost by definition, don't require mass circulation: Wyndham Lewis's Blast might have spurred the modernist revolution but it never gave the cash registers any kind of work out.

In any case, Overland, like most equivalent journals today, receives sufficient funding from arts bodies to insulate us from the throttling grasp of the invisible hand and to allow the publication of forms like poetry that have otherwise totally vanished from the literary economy. (Just try to find a bookstore anywhere in Australia with a decent contemporary poetry selection!).

In this era of intertubes and Twitterfication, we still employ an economic model from the age of the linotype keyboard. That is, though the journal is sold in bookshops, Overland depends mostly on subscribers, who pay a certain amount each year for four copies of a paper journal.

So far, so old school. Yet we also have a strong web presence, and we now make the entirety of each edition available online for free within a few weeks of print publication.

In this, we're influenced by Cory Doctorow, the Canadian SF writer and Boing Boing stalwart. Writers, he argues, are more imperilled by obscurity than by piracy, and distributing work online helps build readership. In our case, online content encourages discussion and debate. If bloggers can read and link to an article, they'll talk about it — and provoking conversations is what a journal of ideas, as we sometimes, rather pretentiously, call ourselves, is meant to do.

If you're giving content away, doesn't that undermine print subscriptions? Well, with present technology, most people simply do not want to read long essays or stories onscreen. Even the cheapest paper provides a better experience than the most expensive screen.

And the online environment does not exactly foster concentration. Any web editor knows the acronym TLDNR: "Too Long Did Not Read". You can start an exciting new story full of enthusiasm for some gun young writer, but along the way you're all too likely to idly click on a link somewhere quite different — you begin with Gogol and end with Gaga, as it were.

Doctorow draws the following conclusion: "The good news (for writers) is that this means that ebooks on computers are more likely to be an enticement to buy the printed book (which is, after all, cheap, easily had, and easy to use) than a substitute for it. You can probably read just enough of the book off the screen to realize you want to be reading it on paper."

The steady growth in Overland subscriptions in recent years confirms this theory: online content actually drives interest in print. So is this a win-win situation? Can the print/online opposition be so nicely resolved? Well, not quite.

Firstly, our online efforts supplement rather than replace our traditional schedule. Like most publishers, over the last decade, we've found ourselves doing considerably more work without a concomitant increase in resources. The Australian publishing industry still works basically on paper — but everyone's now also producing web pages, blogs, Twitter feeds and so on. Across the board, the rate of unpaid labour has reached dangerous and unsustainable levels.

Secondly, the distracted state that prevents online readers from absorbing, say, a 5000 word story or a long essay on aesthetics isn't necessarily just confined to the screen. There's a real tendency to see the challenges facing media — or, in our case, literature — as stemming purely from technology. But that's not true — or, at least, it's only part of the story.

Consider Doctorow's explanation of why your computer doesn't lend itself to the reading of novels: "We run IM and email and we use the browser in a million diverse ways. We have games running in the background, and endless opportunities to tinker with our music libraries. The more you do with your computer, the more likely it is that you'll be interrupted after five to seven minutes to do something else. That makes the computer extremely poorly suited to reading long-form works off of, unless you have the iron self-discipline of a monk."

What he describes is also, however, a pretty good account of the pressures exerted on the rest of our multi-tasking, overstimulated, perpetually "on" existence. We work longer hours than previous generations and the distinction between leisure and labour has broken down to an extent unimaginable a few decades ago. We take our jobs home; we come into the office on the weekend.

The computer might well be extremely poorly suited to reading longform texts — but in some ways, that's the least of the problem. The real threat to literary journals — and, I would suggest, to serious journalism of any kind — is not the internet but rather a neoliberal society in which the contemplative mindset required by traditional reading becomes increasingly anachronistic.

In his famous study of social relationships in the US, Robert Putnam famously explained: "For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century a powerful tide bore Americans into ever deeper engagement in the life of their communities, but a few decades ago — silently, without warning — that tide reversed, and we were overtaken by a treacherous rip current. Without at first noticing, we have been pulled apart from one another and from our communities over the last third of a century. "

The same trends are apparent here, and you can plausibly correlate them to the hyperindividualism and atomisation resulting from 30 years of neoliberalism. Significantly, as Margaret Simons notes in The Content Makers, the decline in newspaper readerships was already marked long before the internet arrived. Newspapers depend on a shared public — and that shared public has been disintegrating ever since the 70s.

In a society that works like a lonely crowd, traditional writing and traditional reading can seem as out of place as, say, five day cricket. An unrestrained free market fosters instead a kind of Twenty20 writing: short, punchy and entirely disposable. Years ago, Bill Hicks predicted that, in the future, the media would consist of a naked woman masturbating next to a slogan. If you look across the web today, you can see exactly what he meant.

What's the alternative?

Contrary to appearances, serious reading has always been communal. In Terry Irving and Rowan Cahill's new book Radical Sydney, Bruce Scates describes the political bookshops of the late nineteenth century as "vibrant social centres ... [places that] ended the isolation, loneliness and confusion that so often plagued the working-class reader. In the reading rooms, books and newspapers, light and warmth and companionship could all be had for a penny's admission."

Overland, as it happens, emerged alongside a similar cluster of political and literary organisations — the Realist Writers' Groups, the Australasian Book Society, etc — that collectively forged a community of readers and writers.

To survive today, alternative publications will need to do something similar. Overland has become a project as much as a journal, in which public events, festival appearances, a group blog, and Twitter and Facebook accounts all play a part. Yes, we still depend on subscriptions — but we're increasingly thinking about subscribers in much the same way as a public radio station does. You take out a subscription to 3RRR or PBS not so much because you have to (there's plenty of people who listen for free) but because you identify with the station and you want it to continue.

So too with Overland.The community around the journal and its political and aesthetic goals not only ensures a base level of financial support but it also fosters an environment in which reading and writing seem to matter.

It's not a model that will work for everyone but it does gesture to a broader point — which is simply that the media crisis is, at base, a political one. The real opposition in these debates is not between print and screen but between the collective and the individual, the market and the people, the public and the private.

Consider, for instance, how Murdoch's plan to paywall his media content has led to a bitter (and already partially successful) campaign against the BBC. The News Ltd paywall is, as everyone knows, bad news for journalism, irrespective of what it does for company profits. A pay-for-content approach will mean you can no longer link to news. It takes the "inter" out of the "net", and transforms the web from a network back into a glorified electric newspaper. Quite obviously, the BBC model with its free content provides better value both for readers and for writers — which is precisely why Murdoch calls it unfair competition.

That, in a nutshell, is the dilemma we all face. As I've argued before in newmatilda.com, there's no reason why a government shouldn't fund a public newspaper — which is essentially what the BBC site is becoming — in the same way it supports ABC TV and radio. It's not just about providing better news. It's also that by insisting on collective responsibility for a social good, which a healthy media clearly is, we help create a public sphere in which news and other writing can be discussed, debated and appreciated.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

incrediblemelk
Posted Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 14:04

I agree with much of what Jeff says here, but I've gotta say I like <i>Overland</i>'s website heaps more than the print version, which I find dull and tendentious. For some reason the ability to engage directly via comments makes content of a similar political outlook seem more dynamic and approachable online.

Also – and I don't wanna come off all Andrew Bolt here – I'd disagree with the idea that a grant-funded journal is independent. I see <i>Overland</i> as a hostage.

I feel arts funding bodies are utterly moribund – stultifyingly prescriptive at best and actively hostile to innovation at worst. I would rather become an ersatz events manager (as we did to pay for <i>Is Not Magazine</i>) than have to rely on grants. And there's that other thing Jeff doesn't mention about online publishing – it's cheaper. The costs of print are ASTRONOMICAL.

AustinGMackell
Posted Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 14:35

I disagree with the authors anti-paywal sentiments. Information costs money to produce. The internet is cheaper than print, as incrediblemelk points out and if, not one company, but the industry as a whole, can make paid online content worth paying for, then we can have functioning journalistic/literary institutions into the future.

David Simon really nailed the issue in his testimony to john kerry's congressional hearing into newspapers.... intertube it...

calyptorhynchus
Posted Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 15:37

"Information costs money to produce."

But News Limited is only producing propaganda, which is very cheap to produce.

If online or print media were producing information then none of them would be in any trouble.

glenfuller
Posted Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 15:51

I've been banging on about this for ages and actually raised it as a comment in response to the LP post about the NM closure: niche/enthusiast media need to be tied to events. The content/scene/enthusiasm specific to a particular publication is irrelevant when it comes to business models. Part of my PhD is about this and I have discussed it in an overly convoluted, philosphical manner on my blog. Plus I have been heavily influenced by the awesome work Mel did with Is Not Magazine and I always felt left out that I couldn't make it to INM's mostly Melbourne gigs.

I agree with much of what Jeff has written, particularly about the radio analogy, but there a few points I'd like to raise:

1) Form of content -- Long form essays are not the only way to represent long form arguments born of long duration critical contemplation of an issue. Instead of online publishing constrained by print-based limitations, all modes of publishing should be explored. Even the web1.0 notion of a 'hypertextual essay' in all its non-linear self-indulgent glory allows for an explorative short-term engagement of long form arguments. If 'literary' is a genre constrained by a technology of publication then maybe it is time to move on? Is there a print/online hybrid version of 'literary'?

2) Media servicing a given sociality -- Pre-internet sociality is primarily organised around offline institutions, the advent of 'just in time' sociality through social media means that the rhythm of social events are far more fluid. The 'community' form of sociality has changed or maybe even no longer exists sure, but that doesn't mean sociality no longer exists. Personally I think this is possibly a dire social development, I feel it is, but have not done any proper research into it. It also doesn't mean that a ruthless media (print/online) editor can't capitalise on the opportunity presented by a mildly reactionary desire for more durable forms of sociality.

Oh, I am pretty sure Gleebooks has a relatively extensive contemporary poetry section!

JohnF
Posted Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 16:00

It's very interesting to hear from an insider, but this assessment is incoherent. First, what does Putnam's "famous" book about the death of communities have to do with a decline in book reading?

Second, enough already with the harking back to a golden age. As Sparrow says himself, the history of shortlived little magazines goes back more than a century. When was this golden age when everyone had time to read novels? It was already past for FR Leavis; it was already past for Matthew Arnold: maybe it was always already past. The problem is not that no-one reads books any more; more books are being published and sold today than ever. The problem, for those who think there is a problem, is which books, and this is not a new problem.

AustinGMackell
Posted Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 06:02

calyptor,

As a journalist who's worked for news limited (as well as NM) I take personal offense. A blanket statement like that is idiotic.

people are always going on about how journalists lie... and how do they know that? because other journalists exposed them...

http://graphics.news.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/060811_beirutcrisis/i...

That is me reporting for news.com.au on the Lebanese red cross during the 2006 war and the problems they face including being directly attacked by the Israeli Air Force. This was a story that required, a car, petrol, a translator, a camera, a microhpoone and for me to be on the other side of the world and in substantial personal danger... but which you think could or should have been produced for free?

interesting comments john and glen... and oh glen... I think they're from melbourne (that cultural hub with apparently no good bookshops!) so they don't know the full awesomeness of gleebooks. btw, there is a new shop opening in marrickville!

Peace

calyptorhynchus
Posted Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 08:19

Dear Austin

I'm sorry you've had to work for News Ltd.

My comment only specified News Ltd as a propaganda machine, although I did note the paucity of information the media generally.

Yes, journalists do expose other journalists, however native common sense is also quite a good resource, and I think this, rather than journalism policing itself, accounts for the decline in sales.

AustinGMackell
Posted Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 03:30

All for common sense.... but sorry im not sure i understand the last paragraph... what is responsible for the decline in sales?

my answer in any case would be in large part the cuts made by the big newspaper chains back when they were still profitable... again... dee david simon speaking to the congressional hearing... he nails it...

denise
Posted Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 15:16

Why has no one mentioned an advertising campaign as another way of raising funds for NM?
Perhaps some outside media attention (re a fund raising campaign to Save the New Matilda) wouldn't go astray to increase readership and lure some appropriate advertisers in. Various types of sponsorships could be even better.
The content of NM may be views not often expressed in the mainstream media and are often from conflicting or differing positions; but the intrinsic value of the articles published here is based on good NM editing of a good writer's research, with the relevant references and links that help explain the ideas being postulated.
These ideas are then value-added by the many inciteful comments on the articles by the widely differing (often radical) NM readership, which it seems is quite determined to keep NM alive in some form or another.

charles_b
Posted Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 17:10

I agree. And there are many factors which had affected the sudden decline in the sales of paper publication. - Charles Brennan