Lit mag reviews
After my reading a copy of Tin House and seeing Jonathan Lethem had a story from Men and Cartoons placed there, it seems prudent that Fungible Convictions should on occasion review literary magazines.
Any thoughts?
Lit mags never get reviewed, and for obvious reasons. Why review a publication that itself includes reviews (and often (necessarily) minor-league writing) when time and space is limited and we all want to read reviews of the big-shot books anyway?
For certain people, especially young writers, knowing what literary magazines are doing, doing well, and doing poorly is valuable. And while no one buys lit mags–the best publications are almost always subsidized by a college or university–a surprising number of young adults do read them or, if not, would read them if someone told them so-and-so had just had a story placed and that it was good. (If our generation knows anything, it’s that artists’ names are cultural currency.)
The style of evaluating literary magazines in Fungible Convictions will be to compare a magazine’s own stated (or inferable) goals with what the magazine in fact publishes. Comparing one utterance to another, you could say. It would be too hard to account for a magazine’s popularity and influence. It would be almost as hard to judge the corpus of writing in the variegated genres magazines must publish in–it’s tricky enough reviewing a collection of short stories, but how does one review a collection of short stories, poems, essays, and artwork, all by different people with different styles and obsessions? Lit mag reviews in FC will take the same tack, then, as FC’s book reviews: concentrating on the following questions: who’s it meant for, what’s it akin to, and is it worth your time as an aging human being?
We’ll see what develops.




