What is the future of printed literary journals?

"For me, if there's a piece of writing that I care about, I want to have the physical object," says Brigid Hughes, editor of the literary journal A Public Space. "There's a permanence to it, a different kind of permanence than if you find it on a website. You're bringing together these different voices and pieces, and the way those pieces interact between those two covers is essential."

The print form of the literary journal has a long history. But does it have a future?

Hughes is a literary journal veteran -- she worked at the Paris Review from 1995 to 2005 -- she's second from left in the photo of key staff, taken in 2003. The Paris Review was founded by George Plimpton (center), Peter Mathiessen and others in 1953, and it became an essential cultural voice. But what direction it might take is uncertain -- it's currently searching for an editor to replace Philip Gourevitch, who will leave in April.

Hughes is certain about how to put her magazine together, but she admits that audiences are harder to figure. Founded five years ago, A Public Space has published some of today's best writers: William T. Vollmann, Marilynne Robinson, Charles D'Ambrosio, John Wray, Richard Powers, T.C. Boyle.

"I don't think it's the quality of the work so much as that readers aren't finding the work." Hughes says. "I think literary magazines need to figure out a way to be better advocates for the work that they're publishing."

In the current issue of Mother Jones, Ted Genoways points out many ways in which literary journals have been losing their cultural foothold. Genoways is the editor of the 85-year-old Virginia Quarterly Review, which considers long-form nonfiction, such as its piece on the Mumbai attacks, an essential part of reviving interest and relevance.

To Los Angeles readers, though, fiction still has an appeal. Melissa Reakers, who runs the newsstand at West Hollywood's Book Soup, says its most popular literary journals are Tin House, Granta, the Paris Review and McSweeney's.

McSweeney's has its frequently updated Internet Tendency, and a few literary journals -- including the Paris Review and Granta -- are trying to exploit the Web in interesting ways. Are video, audio, interactivity and Internet-speed content the way of the future for literary magazines? Or is there something special about print literary journals -- can they get by with informational websites, directing readers to the print product for a complete reading experience?

-- Carolyn Kellogg

Photo: Members of the Paris Review staff in 2003, from left: Oliver Broudy, Brigid Hughes, editor George Plimpton, Fiona Maazel, Charles Buice and Tom Moffett. Credit: Jennifer S. Altman / For The Times

Comments

[JT]

This article is missing one literary journal that has been printing since 1972--Fiction Magazine, Inc.

This literary journal has printed many, many, many well-known authors. It was started by Donald Barthelme, Mark Jay Mirsky, and Max Frisch at the City University of New York. I encourage an update to the article with more investigation in this powerhouse literary journal.

[Marc Weingarten]

I'm a big fan of A Public Space and the other journals mentioned in this post, but I'm literally the only person I know who reads A Public Space. Shame, really.

And we shouldn't forget that it's not just about the text: great care is taken to make sure these journals look great, too. A Public Space not only has great writing, it's graphically striking, and you just can't replicate that combination online in quite the same way.

[escarp]

We started a response to Ted Genoways compelling article, but felt like we were rushing a reply. We have to let ourselves steep in this all-too-important question. We've done a little work both in print and online; although our current efforts are focused on the web, we feel ourselves very much torn between the desire to make the artifact--the beautiful thing--and the desire to do things that just aren't possible in print media.

The way we see it, there's a distinct chicken-and-egg sort of problem here. As long as writers see journals as just-a-way-to-get-enough-publication-credits-to-land-a-book-deal, there's going to be a lack of readership and a lack of respect. We'd be surprised if a writer reading this comment _hasn't_ submitted something to a publication they've never seen more than an issue of.

If writers don't take these publications seriously--how can we expect readers to?

But, to flip that on its ear: without readers, publications don't have the money to offer the kind of serious rates that make pursuing journal publication an end in itself--something more lucrative, or at least competitive, with the book.

In a sense, the importance of the book to the system we've established (faculty need to publish books to get hired and get tenured, graduate students have to produce "publication-quality" manuscripts to get degrees, and get journal credits to get them published somewhere) creates a sort of "cult of the book" to which all other literary publication is in some sense subservient. What's the goal of almost every young online-only journal? To anthologize. To produce a book, a thing, an object worth owning. We're just as guilty of this as anyone else.

Unfortunately, with so many writers subscribing to this cult, there aren't many easy outs. We could mail a flier on why you shouldn't want to publish a book to every writer in America, and most of them are still going to continue hoping to see their name riding the spine of a beautiful book. There's some hope on the horizon, though. E-books. It wouldn't surprise us if production cost issues make presses much more likely to give risky titles an e-book test run before they go to print. While this might result in more manuscripts being "published," far fewer would likely see a printing press (granted, print-on-demand will likely be offered on most of these books.) It wouldn't be under the best circumstances--but perhaps writers will be able to muster some renewed interest in journals if it becomes a little too hard to get their titles out of e-book purgatory and into the flesh.

[Jarred McGinnis]

The lines between what is print/digital will increasingly and inevitably blur. In any case, why would you force interested consumers into making a choice? If they want content, why quibble on the format? What is certain is that no creator or publisher of content will get by with an uninteresting, flat "here's where you can buy the book" website.

-Jarred

[jesusangelgarcia]

I love the look and feel of living words on real live paper. But I'm convinced that the 21st-century reality of art-making and audience-building means giving multimedia a big ol' bear hug. Choices -- both in print, online, and in digital hard copy -- are key. As least that's how I'm betting.