Print vs. online: Less of a debate, more of a strategy

print vs online pic for blog 18_0611 banner2

In the print versus online dilemma for publishing creative works, reputation and reach have been among the issues to consider. But the lines keep blurring and (spoiler alert) online magazines are offering more than ever.

As for reputation, the online sites of print literary magazines have been viewed by some as the “lite” version, writes David H. Lynn in “Editor’s Notes: Print vs. Internet: An Ongoing Conversation,” which included poet G. C. Waldrep, in The Kenyon Review in 2009. Based on this perception, it would follow that publishing online might be seen as lower status, especially for creative writers seeking a publication record for retention, promotion, and tenure in higher education.

Since Lynn’s 2009 article, the roster and perceived quality of online literary magazines has continued to develop, whether they were linked to print journals (such as The Kenyon Review and KROnline) or solely Internet-based (such as Electric Literature).

For example, both the printed Kenyon Review (ranked No. 4) and Electric Lit (ranked No. 70 and climbing) show up in the “2017 Perpetual Folly Literary Magazine Ranking—Fiction.” This ranking for fiction is compiled annually by Clifford Garstang based on Pushcart Prize results.

Attitudes, as well as some university guidelines for promotion and tenure, have been evolving along with the literary magazine rankings. Online searches for professional development guidelines for creative writers within colleges and universities make points such as the following from the University of Wisconsin Colleges:

“Online publication has become increasingly more respectable and that trend will likely continue. There are many high-quality online markets for creative writing, run by professional editors and designers who are highly selective in the works they chose.”

These same guidelines, however, encouraged junior faculty members to “defend the validity” of publications not specifically listed among high-quality markets. In other words, the status of some journals, and especially online magazines, may be works in progress.

Research published in 2014 concluded that online literary magazines or “post-print magazines can be taken seriously…and will remain relevant,” writes Laura Dietz of Anglia Ruskin University in her article “Online versus Print: The Reputation of Literary Fiction Magazines,” which appeared in Short Fiction in Theory & Practice.

Based on her survey of 139 “authors, editors, students, reviewers, book enthusiasts and anyone else interested in the question,” Dietz predicted that influential online journals will fall into two categories:

  • “[E]stablished magazines exploiting new technology without abandoning the trappings of pre-Internet success”
  • “[N]on-charging magazines moving online specifically to take advantage of receptivity to free literature when offered digitally”

The advantages of free literary works on the Internet is an important point in the print vs. online conversation.

DC-area novelist and writer Leslie Pietrzyk blogged about this issue in 2017 when her short story “We Always Start with the Seduction” was accepted for publication by Southhampton Review Online.

“When they accepted the story for the online journal I was at first confused and then slightly irritated,” Pietrzyk writes. “But I consulted with the wise minds on Facebook which sparked a long and interesting thread about online vs. print publications. Maybe I have some residual bias toward print…but also, if this story were in print only, I would be begging you to fork out ten bucks to have a journal sent to you a week from now.”

The broader reach and access of digital content is something Lynn at The Kenyon Review also noted. “As it happens, we’ve already seen the evidence with KROnline that the potential audience on the Internet is far greater than those who read the printed journal,” he writes. Instead of reprinting content from print editions, KROnline offers content targeted toward online readers. “Evidence suggests that they are looking for shorter pieces, more timely work too, and even a little more experimental,” writes Lynn.

In addition, online publications offer features not available in print. For example, Superstition Review, an online literary magazine at Arizona State University, just completed its fourth issue with embedded audio files of authors reading their work. This is a feature Tahoma Literary Review and other publications provide as well.

Also, the Superstition Review staff is active in promoting issues and contributors (past and present) across social media platforms. Other online magazines, such as The Kenyon Review, produce podcasts, in addition to more typical blogs, contributor Q&As, and newsletters.

In the end, what has been called the “print vs. online debate” should probably transition into a “print & online strategy” for creative writers and magazines alike.

“To Walk Chalk” in Superstition Review

1898 house parlor to dining room (800x408) (2)

My story “To Walk Chalk” has been published in Superstition Review, an online literary magazine at Arizona State University. (The review staff was wonderful to work with, and they run a great website.) Here’s the link to the short story: “To Walk Chalk.”

The setting for this story stuck with me years after seeing a newspaper ad for Sharer’s Funeral Parlor and Mortuary in my grandmother’s scrapbook. The address for the mortuary was the same as the house my great-great-grandfather had built in 1898 in a small Wisconsin town known for tobacco farming. My grandmother had lived in that house for the majority of her eighty-plus years.

Problem: No one in the family had ever been in the mortuary business. No one in the family had the last name Sharer.

Answer: The family home had been rented out during the Great Depression.

Only after learning this did it make sense why my grandfather had once told me, “They embalmed people in the basement.” I must have been twelve when he said this, and it changed my perception of the basement forever.

The house is no longer in the family, but we have pictures such as the parlor scene above. And now some of my memories have been spun into the short story, even if I modified the description of the house’s exterior to include details from at least two other Wisconsin buildings.

The road to revision is paved with MP3 files

microphone (249x400)There’s nothing like reading a short story aloud, especially while recording it, to uncover repetitions, poor word choices, flat dialogue, and the inevitable paragraph- and sentence-level glitches.

However, the need to read aloud to create an MP3 file for an online literary magazine or podcast raises the stakes on this process. What had been a useful tool for revision—one I use and recommend to students—can become something people might actually hear.

My technical skills, my reading, and my story needed to develop. Fast.

Tech

  • Software—I had been directed to a download site for Audacity, the free open source audio recording/editing program from SourceForge. After some research, I found a link to a more up to date version of the Audacity program that was supposed to have addressed earlier concerns about malware.
  • Microphone—After a trial run, I discovered that the microphone in my laptop was not up to the task. What had worked for Skype calls and a YouTube video, now created audio files filled with fan noise and pops from the processor. Solutions included:
    • Switching to Airplane Mode to pause as many of my computer’s background functions as possible.
    • Investing in a USB microphone that was good enough but wasn’t professional level, which could easily top $200. (I found an Amazon bestseller for about $25.)
    • Realizing that, in addition to enabling the plug-and-play USB microphone, I needed to manually disable the internal microphone, which was still picking up processor noise.
  • MP3 conversion—While exporting my audacity project to a MP3 file, I found that I needed an extension called LAME, which involved more research to find a safe-ish download.

Reading

  • Use a tablet—To avoid recording the rustling of turning pages, I sent my story in a pdf file to my tablet to scroll quietly through as I read. (I also tried dual monitors, but the computer and tablet combo seemed to work more smoothly.)
  • Pause strategically—My story took about 25 minutes to read. I’d seen recommendations and tutorials about how to edit an audio file, but the terminology and controls were so new to me that the learning curve was steep and frustrating. Pausing the recording after a glitch, listening to and deleting the glitch, and then re-recording seemed to work best for me. Full sentences or paragraphs worked best for stopping and starting points.
  • Ditch the mouse—Mouse clicks can sound inordinately loud in an audio file. Using the laptop touch pad was quieter and easier, especially when moving back and forth between the manuscript scrolling on the tablet and the Audacity controls on the laptop.

Through this trial-and-error process, I read my short story aloud so many times, that I stopped seeing revisions to make…for now. The acting part of story narration still eludes me—painfully so. Nonetheless, now I have an audio file and a freshly revised story. On to the next chapter.