Comments on: Further Thoughts on Junker http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/ A National Blog of Literature & Discussion Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:20:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: bacongirl http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2444 bacongirl Wed, 28 May 2008 15:33:55 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2444 onward! onward!

]]> By: John Stephen Lewis http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2431 John Stephen Lewis Sun, 25 May 2008 23:31:49 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2431 Deep beneath the folds of my smoking jacket, the clinched fist of my heart pittered and then pattered with those lovely lines: “Maybe that’s what Howard Junker calls ‘pious, pompous, cliched ranting.’ It’s what I call giving a shit.” I think I will call Mother. Deep beneath the folds of my smoking jacket, the clinched fist of my heart pittered and then pattered with those lovely lines:

“Maybe that’s what Howard Junker calls ‘pious, pompous, cliched ranting.’ It’s what I call giving a shit.”

I think I will call Mother.

]]> By: links for 2008-05-24 « Charlottesville Words http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2430 links for 2008-05-24 « Charlottesville Words Sat, 24 May 2008 17:30:35 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2430 [...] VQR » Blog » Further Thoughts on Junker It just gets more bizarre. [...] [...] VQR » Blog » Further Thoughts on Junker It just gets more bizarre. [...]

]]> By: Ricini http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2429 Ricini Sat, 24 May 2008 15:14:03 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2429 Mr. Junker, I have some unwarranted and slightly condescending advice for you, Onward! Mr. Junker, I have some unwarranted and slightly condescending advice for you, Onward!

]]> By: The Humanities: “A Preseverve for the Elite?” « Hoosierati http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2428 The Humanities: “A Preseverve for the Elite?” « Hoosierati Fri, 23 May 2008 20:38:44 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2428 [...] literary journals available but I feel that I should do so again. Here’s Ted Genoways defending his publication (VQR) against an attack from Zyzzyva editor Howard Junker. I wouldn’t bring it up except 1) I [...] [...] literary journals available but I feel that I should do so again. Here’s Ted Genoways defending his publication (VQR) against an attack from Zyzzyva editor Howard Junker. I wouldn’t bring it up except 1) I [...]

]]> By: Nick Johnson http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2425 Nick Johnson Thu, 22 May 2008 02:44:42 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2425 I think that VQR should include the content it wants to include because the editors find that the authors are telling stories that are pertinent and touching. Competing with other journalistic publications isn't all bad, however, I read VQR because I still want the literary bent. In the end, I trust the editors will make the right decisions to remain loyal to the literary side of things while finding new and interesting stories to tell. As far as the whole literary magazine as elite deal goes - unnecessary. That's like saying we don't want people to be a part of "our" community, nor do we want to be a part of theirs. Besides, I'd rather literary magazines be in all the grocery store checkout aisles for $2.50 a pop. Actually, maybe it's better that way; then I get to get out of the store. And, oh yeah, God forbid VQR go the way of the Atlantic Monthly and make us go out and buy the "fiction issue" in 2010. I think that VQR should include the content it wants to include because the editors find that the authors are telling stories that are pertinent and touching. Competing with other journalistic publications isn’t all bad, however, I read VQR because I still want the literary bent. In the end, I trust the editors will make the right decisions to remain loyal to the literary side of things while finding new and interesting stories to tell.

As far as the whole literary magazine as elite deal goes – unnecessary. That’s like saying we don’t want people to be a part of “our” community, nor do we want to be a part of theirs. Besides, I’d rather literary magazines be in all the grocery store checkout aisles for $2.50 a pop. Actually, maybe it’s better that way; then I get to get out of the store.

And, oh yeah, God forbid VQR go the way of the Atlantic Monthly and make us go out and buy the “fiction issue” in 2010.

]]> By: Waldo Jaquith http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2424 Waldo Jaquith Thu, 22 May 2008 00:51:55 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2424 <blockquote>how sad that you had to delete my comments.</blockquote> Your comment is <a href="/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2419" rel="nofollow">right where it's been all along</a>. I suspect that either you overlooked it or you're referring to another comment that you left on a different blog entirely. In my experience, this explains 95% of "where did my comment go?" complaints on blogs.

how sad that you had to delete my comments.

Your comment is right where it’s been all along. I suspect that either you overlooked it or you’re referring to another comment that you left on a different blog entirely. In my experience, this explains 95% of “where did my comment go?” complaints on blogs.

]]> By: World Class Poetry Blog » Blog Archive » Introducing The Perfect Poem http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2423 World Class Poetry Blog » Blog Archive » Introducing The Perfect Poem Thu, 22 May 2008 00:35:59 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2423 [...] I agree with Ted Genoways on both points: Journalism is suited to any medium willing to put in the hours and the sweat necessary to produce great reportage; and secondly, lit mags are not a “preserve for the elite”. Howard Junker is wrong. Lit mags should engage the culture, not look down their noses at it. And if you give a shit, read the rest of Genoways’ post. [...] [...] I agree with Ted Genoways on both points: Journalism is suited to any medium willing to put in the hours and the sweat necessary to produce great reportage; and secondly, lit mags are not a “preserve for the elite”. Howard Junker is wrong. Lit mags should engage the culture, not look down their noses at it. And if you give a shit, read the rest of Genoways’ post. [...]

]]> By: howard junker http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2422 howard junker Wed, 21 May 2008 22:16:19 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2422 how sad that you had to delete my comments. they were not flattering, of course, and perhaps you think only good things should be said about you. if only that were possible. how sad that you had to delete my comments.

they were not flattering, of course, and perhaps you think only good things should be said about you. if only that were possible.

]]> By: Lee Rice Epstein http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/21/further-thoughts-on-junker/#comment-2421 Lee Rice Epstein Wed, 21 May 2008 16:51:05 +0000 http://www.vqronline.org/blog/?p=276#comment-2421 Sorry to circle back around, but as one of the readers who disagreed with the posting of reader comments, I'm not sure at all how Howard Junker could possibly have my back. I don't agree with a single word he wrote, and I agree even less with this characterization of the role of a literary journal. As anyone with Google can see, I spent a couple of years as a slush-pile reader and editor for McSweeney's, a journal that has always excited me for its routine breaking of the apocryphal socio-cultural boundaries that, in Junker's mind at least, define the role, content, look, and feel of a literary journal. I would suggest the same is true for VQR, which is my sole complaint about the original posting of reader comments. The comments weren't in line with the quality of conversation I've come to expect from VQR. Posting them seemed, to me, self-satisfied, elitist, and petty, not as directly harsh as but still akin to Junker's similar complaints. This isn't about having "thick skin." That's a hack argument, and the snark and nastiness associated with it are a hack's tools. This is about having respect and showing it, and Junker should know better, too, as San Francisco boasts a refreshingly communal literary scene. As for the journalism, Junker's comments here are so far off the mark I can't even tell what he wants from his journal or readers. I don't read literary journals to confirm my status as a supposed member of the elite. I read because they can be a source of truly excellent non-fiction writing and thoughtful analysis, to say nothing of a liveliness that is missing from most publications. VQR's success has been a thrilling and welcome confirmation that you're doing something right. The time and space allotted to a journal piece allows writers to explore various angles and opinions we don't often get to see in daily newspapers and weekly glossies. The delivery of a 300-page issue of VQR is cause for celebration in our house. It would be nice to see a few other print journals rise to the same level. Sorry to circle back around, but as one of the readers who disagreed with the posting of reader comments, I’m not sure at all how Howard Junker could possibly have my back. I don’t agree with a single word he wrote, and I agree even less with this characterization of the role of a literary journal. As anyone with Google can see, I spent a couple of years as a slush-pile reader and editor for McSweeney’s, a journal that has always excited me for its routine breaking of the apocryphal socio-cultural boundaries that, in Junker’s mind at least, define the role, content, look, and feel of a literary journal.

I would suggest the same is true for VQR, which is my sole complaint about the original posting of reader comments. The comments weren’t in line with the quality of conversation I’ve come to expect from VQR. Posting them seemed, to me, self-satisfied, elitist, and petty, not as directly harsh as but still akin to Junker’s similar complaints. This isn’t about having “thick skin.” That’s a hack argument, and the snark and nastiness associated with it are a hack’s tools. This is about having respect and showing it, and Junker should know better, too, as San Francisco boasts a refreshingly communal literary scene.

As for the journalism, Junker’s comments here are so far off the mark I can’t even tell what he wants from his journal or readers. I don’t read literary journals to confirm my status as a supposed member of the elite. I read because they can be a source of truly excellent non-fiction writing and thoughtful analysis, to say nothing of a liveliness that is missing from most publications. VQR’s success has been a thrilling and welcome confirmation that you’re doing something right. The time and space allotted to a journal piece allows writers to explore various angles and opinions we don’t often get to see in daily newspapers and weekly glossies. The delivery of a 300-page issue of VQR is cause for celebration in our house. It would be nice to see a few other print journals rise to the same level.

]]>