I studied creative writing as an undergrad. Back then (I graduated in 2006), my peers and professors absolutely did not take poetry and other creative writing published online seriously. The understanding was that because anyone could put something online there was nothing to set apart good writing from bad. Even online journals with submission processes equal to those of print journals were looked down upon because they could be started by anyone. Print publications had a sense of legitimacy that online publications did not.
I wonder why this is still the case. Blogs have a legitimacy today that the did not five years ago. When I was in undergrad it was taboo to cite a blog in a paper. Today, there are many well known blogs that would not be questioned as a reliable source. Well respected institutions like Pew Research publish work online. Barack Obama announced Joe Biden as his running mate via text message, for goodness sakes!
Somehow, when you cross the line to the creative, the Internet doesn't fly. While many well known lit mags are putting content online, that content is backed up by the "real" version of the journal that is in print. Anyone have any thoughts?
Posts
How to watch Los Angeles Clippers vs. New Orleans Pelicans online
-
Live stream Los Angeles Clippers vs. New Orleans Pelicans in the NBA from
anywhere in the world.
1 hour ago
2 comments:
I have noticed this, too, and it puzzles me. At my internship, the reps of people I interview are obsessed with getting the story in print and could care less about the online version of the story.
But, if you think about it, there are many advantages to having it online:
-It's there "forever," and a Google search will always bring it up. And, every time the story's subject makes the news, that's another reason for people to Google him/her and possibly stumble upon the story.
-Social network traction: people can link to it on Facebook and Twitter and recommend it to their friends.
-Reading the online comments under the story gives you instant feedback that you can then use to your advantage, whether you're representing a celebrity or an organization.
-The online story can link out to your organization, bringing readers right to your door.
-The online story is often the "full" version with quotes and details that were cut from the print version due to lack of space. Also, online stories will often contain "extras" like interactive timelines, photo galleries and videos.
Still, a print page that can be clipped out is seen as having a higher value by nearly everyone for some reason.
As a fellow creative writing undergrad major, I know exactly what you mean. And I agree with Kristin, when it comes to writing -- especially "journalistic" writing -- the Internet provides many advantages that print media simply do not offer.
I think that a major issue with creative writing is that there's just so much writing out there; as a result, people develop systems and standards for weeding things out and selecting the "best" works. To a certain extent, I feel this is trickier with creative writing than with journalistic writing and blogs, since those tend to be more topical and directed (and in some cases, easier to find when you're seeking something specific). Many people are used to the sorting old system-- if it's in print, it must be decent -- so it's easy to hold on to it. Clearly, as you pointed out, there are reasons why this approach may seem outdated, especially when it comes to delivering facts. However, it's very uncommon to link to outside websites or use multimedia when it comes to creative writing. Maybe this is part of the reason why people are slow in respecting online lit mags.
Post a Comment