Chekhov’s Mistess

Lit Journals I’m Reading

Herein begins a semi-regular column about literary journals I’ve been reading recently. Think of it like those Hornsby things in The Believer, except not afraid to go negative from time to time and having a few less annoying digressions into cricket.

Anyway, I picked up a couple of lit journals over the last two weeks—The Baffler and The Land-Grant College Review. The Baffler, as many know, is the creation of Thomas Frank, the man who is also responsible for an excellent book that has only become more popular since Nov 2, What’s the Matter with Kansas. Befitting such a politically-oriented founder and editor, The Baffler has a healthy dose of more politically-oriented pieces to compliment its regular fiction coverage.

The current issue is number 16 and most of the pieces deal in one way or another with the New Economy of the 1990s. One piece called “Starving to Death on Red Herring” doubles as a book review of Starving to Death on $200 Million (by the former editor of the now defunct Industry Standard Europe) and a post-mortem of the ‘90s. It’s by Kenneth Neil Cukier, who worked for Red Herring, a go-go ’90s dotcom journal. Another piece, written by Frank himself, deals with the ideological aftermath of the 1990s, i.e. that we still have a misplaced faith in the free market, but the optimism that once backed-up our faith is gone.

I liked both these pieces for the way they provided engaging views how the ’90s was. Of course, I lived through the ’90s, so I have my own firsthand experience, but it’s worth hearing about it from these two because Cukier experienced it up close (the extravagance and the optimism of working for a dotcom) and has lots of interesting anecdotes, and Frank has a unique perspective which I, for one, find to be a valuable reading of events.

On the literary side, there are two short excerpts from Dubravka Ugresic’s book Thank You For Not Reading (Dalkey Archive). In both these excerpts, Ugresic uses a heavy dose of Eastern Bloc experience to undermine and cast into interesting light, Western literary assumptions. For example “Long live Socialist Realism!” examines how the American self-help book crazy has eerie parallels to Soviet propaganda novels of the likes of How Steel Was Tempered.

Socialist realism was an optimistic and joyful art. Nowhere else was there so much faith in a bright future and the definitive victory of good over evil.

Nowhere except in market-oriented culture. Most of today’s literary production bases its success on the simply socialist-realist idea of progress. Bookstore counters are heaped with books that contain one single idea: how to overcome personal disability, how to improve one’s own situation.

Short as they are, both of Ugresic’s excerpts are thought-provoking.

There is also something called “The Literary Vaudeville,” which I assume is a regular column (as it is labeled “Column”). The Literary Vaudeville contains two short pieces; one is about the rise of James Patterson from successful marketing exec (he worked on the Toys’R’Us Kids campaign and the Oscar Mayer bologna theme song) to successful self-branded author of crappy fictions. The other piece details an excruciating-sounding book called The System: A Story of Intrigue and Market Domination, which, according to the column, sounds like a cross between “management manifesto” and bad pulp noir, seasoned with a heavy dose of good old Ayn Rand market capitalism faith.

To save Quenetics [his transnational corporation with a falling share price], Timothy focuses on a simple mantra (helpfully italicized and highlighted in the text so the reader can remember it, too): Focus, Fortify, and Foster Futurity.

Yes, I dare any one of you to find a better way to mock that mantra than by simply quoting it. (It can’t be done.)

The piece about Patterson was illuminating (I didn’t know quite so much about the ways successful authors are marketed nowadays), but the one about The System was more empty. Sure, it’s fun to slam some worthless corporate drivel, but how much to we really learn in the slamming? Anyway, it’s just a couple of pages, so what the heck. It was a fun two pages.

This is my first foray into The Baffler, but I’ve liked it so much that I hope it will not be my last. Unfortunately, this issue dates to June 2003, so perhaps there will be some difficulty in acquiring issue number 17. The Baffler was founded in 1988, and with 16 issues in roughly 16 years, we do not see these things too often. But, given that it’s apparently been over a year and a half since the last Baffler hit the streets, perhaps there is a new one in the wings.

As for The Land-Grant College Review, I would like to write about it, but it will have to wait for the next time I get around to writing about lit journals. This is a pretty hefty post as it is, and I’d like some more time to better arrange my thouhts on TLGCR.

I liked both these pieces for the way they provided engaging views the way the ’90s were. Of course, I lived through the ’90s, so I have my own firsthand experience, but it’s worth hearing about it from these two because Cukier experienced it up close (the extravagance and the optimism of working for a dotcom) and has lots of interesting anecdotes, and Frank has a unique perspective which I, for one, find to be a valuable reading of events.

comments

Great post Scott - I like the idea of this series and look forward to further such posts.

Enjoy,

    – Dan Wickett (02/13  at  02:57 AM)

Yes, very interesting post.  There are so many literary journals out there, I almost don’t know where to begin.  I get a few, but feel like I am missing out on some.  Glad you’re here now to point out which ones are good.

    – bookdwarf (02/16  at  03:26 PM)

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments

Next entry: Is There Such a Thing as Poetic Osmosis?
Previous entry: A Bento Box of Paul Auster Quotes

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: February 13, 2005
• Filed Under:
  Wise Men Fish Here: Literature

• Comments:2
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -