Talk:Literary magazine

message: The article doesn't even begin to reflect the role of the small press poetry journals in the last 50 years.  You're right in saying that it would be a daunting and ultimately trivial task to list all the journals that have come and gone in the last 5 decades (many of which published poets who have gone on to be come "established" in the larger community).
One of the hallmarks of these small magazines was the fact that the editors were often poets, and that reciprocity was a commonplace.   In other words, 'I'll publish yours if you'll publish mine' (rarely stated as baldly as that) was a common attitude and practice.  Contrary to the expectations of many purists, academics, mainstream publishers, etc., this didn't produce the publication of as much bad poetry as one might expect.  It was not/ is not a kind of glorified vanity press (the history of vanity press is often maligned unfairly -- Consider Whitman).
It was an extremely open, democratic, and fertile field for poets.  The article doesn't mention  any of the important organizations involved in the distribution and dissemination of the small presses.  The Committee Of Small Magazine Editors and Publishers (COSMEP) was founded by Hugh Fox.  It was an attempt to organize the energy of the small presses.  Len Fulton, editor and founder of Dustbook publishing, gathered together the first real list of these small magazines and their editors.  This made it possible for poets to pick and choose the publications most amenable to their work.  The National Endowment of the Arts created a committee to distribute support money for this burgeoning group of publishers, the Coordinating Council of Literary Magazines (CCLM), and this is just a small part of what this article is missing.
I'm just giving you the tip of the iceberg here so that you might realize how woefully inadequate this article is.   It fails to communicate even a small part of the energy out there in the small mag scene.  I think it should be scrapped as it currently exists because it only names a few of the bigger better known or University associated presses.  And the whole notion of counting google hits makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.  Most of us small publishers are already aware that our audience is small.  But I think it reflects a total lack of sophistication and awareness of the phenomenon to judge any of the small mags by numbers.  Good god, if you applied that to poetry, you'd have to assume that Rod McKuen is a great poet, and the Readers Digest is great literature. Stephen 19:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs much more research 

message: The following statement:
Those who are critical of this phenomenon say that the completely democratic nature of the medium allows anyone to publish a web based literary journal and too often these publications are symptomatic, the critics say, of the prevailing attitude that poetry is personal; anyone can write it, and no one can judge it.
contains a lot of assumptions: That online literary magazines are completely democratic (at least as "democratic" is used here, not meaning open to all writers based only on merit, but willing to publish all writers, regardless of merit); that the prevailing attitude is that poetry is personal, anyone can write it and no one can judge it; that web-based publications support that attitude.  I have to say that in my own experience those are not true statements.  Online literary magazines have an editorial process, whereby many submissions are received, judged and only those which the editors view as having literary merit are published. As with print publications, depending on the size and style of the publication, and the number of submissions it receives, the criteria for publication may differ from publication to publication.  However, there is certainly an editorial process--not a free-for-all of anything submitted is published--and the process is one of judging which works are deserving of publication.
I didn't remove the statement in the article yet, as I don't have an external reference handy to support my own position as stated here on the discussion page.  However, I would say the statement needs to be verified.  If it can't be verified, it should be removed.  If it can be verified, the citation of the specific critics making this claim needs to be given. Noneuclid 05:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified statement with no citation 

message: I note that there is an edit war going on about whether or not to include Brick Magazine. A quick perusal of their website http://www.brickmag.com/ shows that one of their editors is Michael Ondaatje, author of The English Patient, that their contributors include National Book Award winner Russell Banks, Jim Harrison (Legends of the Fall), Joyce Carol Oates (perennial Nobel candidate), Margaret Atwood (Canada's leading novelist), Annie Proulx (Brokeback Mountain), etc. I'm not sure how that fails any test of notability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.129.118 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pretty notable to me. Unless someone can give a valid reason why it shouldn't be here, I say let it stay.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm good with that. I hadn't intended an edit war--was just trying to maintain the standard that all others publications listed were meeting: that they were all in the body of the article. That standard was established primarily as an easy reference when determining what was/was not spam in the list. The article itself has been edited to include it now.DaveClapper (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRICK MAGAZINE 

message: When I came to this page, I was trying to find information about a London based magazine which is actually called the Literary Review. I can't seem to find anything on it on this site - is there anything? If so, could someone do something to clarify it? I haven't really the time to start an article if there isn't one already.
Indy4ever (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you can't find it, but I've linked to it in the header above. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you meant The English Review which was a literary magazine published in Londen.Smallman12q (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Literary Review]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Literary magazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901132733/http://www.sewanee.edu/sewanee_review/history to http://www.sewanee.edu/sewanee_review/history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified