There is no such thing as bad publicity
A person who submitted a fine story to TQR a while back recently said the TQR format was 'alienating' and he said it on the main discussion boards of Zoetrope Online Writer's Workshop. His post was understandable since TQR is to put it nicely 'a different kind of son of a bitchin' story site.' So. My point is, we've got 3 submissions today, more than in a long while. Thanks to the bemused poster and past VC, who I hold no grudge against whatsoever. None whatso-fucking-ever. Really.
Margaret Lonsdale of said online site came back with a stunningly insightful and pithy reiteration of what TQR is all a'be:
I guess one person's gobbydegook is another's source of laughter and fun.
TQR is, I think, a kind of post-modern concept of what an e-zine can be. In its multi-facetedness [is that a word?], it allows us to watch the editing process as it unfolds, identifying the elements of a decent piece of writing [aka 'capital']. The transparency is for those with a voyeuristic curiosity I suppose. And an interest in detail and process rather than only the end result: a published work. TQR fans want to know how and why a piece is worthy of publication.
Concurrently, we get to know a little about the personalities of the editorial team and how each of them views the pieces he or she reads. What is it about the piece that makes it so damn good? They share this information with each other and, in the process, share with those who care to watch what is really great about a piece of writing and why I should read it.
As a voracious reader of all things, I, for one, want to know. Then there's the pure entertainment, a little bent perhaps albeit hopefully not without some wit and intelligence in its content. In the process, what might be revealed is some idea of what it's like inside the offices of all these literary bums. What do they talk about amongst themselves? What motivates them? Why do they do it? TQR is a lot to take in as it is not purely about submission, then acceptance or rejection, then publication. It's a lot more involved and hence, probably a lot more work to take in. Not for everyone, for sure. But for those with a penchant for adventure, a bit of a sense of humour, and an open mind for new ideas, it's worth a look.
per Margaret Lonsdale
I couldn't have put it better!
Margaret Lonsdale of said online site came back with a stunningly insightful and pithy reiteration of what TQR is all a'be:
I guess one person's gobbydegook is another's source of laughter and fun.
TQR is, I think, a kind of post-modern concept of what an e-zine can be. In its multi-facetedness [is that a word?], it allows us to watch the editing process as it unfolds, identifying the elements of a decent piece of writing [aka 'capital']. The transparency is for those with a voyeuristic curiosity I suppose. And an interest in detail and process rather than only the end result: a published work. TQR fans want to know how and why a piece is worthy of publication.
Concurrently, we get to know a little about the personalities of the editorial team and how each of them views the pieces he or she reads. What is it about the piece that makes it so damn good? They share this information with each other and, in the process, share with those who care to watch what is really great about a piece of writing and why I should read it.
As a voracious reader of all things, I, for one, want to know. Then there's the pure entertainment, a little bent perhaps albeit hopefully not without some wit and intelligence in its content. In the process, what might be revealed is some idea of what it's like inside the offices of all these literary bums. What do they talk about amongst themselves? What motivates them? Why do they do it? TQR is a lot to take in as it is not purely about submission, then acceptance or rejection, then publication. It's a lot more involved and hence, probably a lot more work to take in. Not for everyone, for sure. But for those with a penchant for adventure, a bit of a sense of humour, and an open mind for new ideas, it's worth a look.
per Margaret Lonsdale
I couldn't have put it better!
posted by Theodore Q. Rorschalk at 1:54 PM
3 Comments:
Very funny post. And interesting insight into the zines process.
Good luck, Monsieur Rorshalk.
Or should I call you Steve?
That last one was me, it selected anonymous automatically. But I'm Me.
M.
Steve? Mais non! You must have me confused, mademoiselle, with another person.
However, thank you for reading M. Lonsdale's brilliant defense of my baby.
I shall pay your blog a reciprocatory (is this a word?) visit very soon.
Adieu,
Post a Comment
<< Home