I’ve been reading about this
Virginia Quarterly Review scandal that was brewing online a couple of months ago. Yes, I’m always a bit behind the times.
VQR published to their blog snippets of scathing comments made by the readers on their staff about submissions from their slush pile. I’m all too aware how elitist attitudes run rampant in literary circles, but it’s still a bit surprising to see it displayed so proudly. Apparently, a lot of other people felt the same way, and cyber fights broke out like the plague.
So then editor Ted Genoways wrote an “apology” that spent all of one sentence expressing something resembling remorse and the rest of the several paragraphs tooting the publication’s horn in the same self-important, aren’t-we-so-clever tone that got so many people riled up in the first place, with a lot of fighting-the-good-fight-for-literature rhetoric and blaming the blog readers for misinterpreting their intentions, saying that “some writers got the idea that
VQR delights in belittling unsolicited submissions,” which, of course, is exactly what they did. But I’m sure they didn’t delight in it. I’m sure it was very painful for them.
He also says that the comments accurately depict their readers’ “
righteous indignation” at the submissions they read which are inappropriate for them. What?! Did he really just say that? Righteous indignation? Is he aware that this phrase is typically not used in a particularly flattering way (see link above)? It might not have been quite what he meant to say, but it certainly does speak volumes.
Genoways tries to defend the post by saying that there is objectively good writing and objectively bad writing, and to a degree this is true. But I hope he’s not trying to pretend that he has always been a member of the former group. Who of us with any self-awareness can say we never wrote something embarrassingly inept? But hopefully, there wasn’t someone there to berate us publicly for our bumbling, sophomoric attempts, and that’s why we continued to write and to, hopefully, improve.
When I was reviewing submissions for
River City (now
The Pinch) did we make derisive remarks about certain submissions? Of course. Did we post the most absurd cover letters on the walls of the office? Yes. One has to keep a sense of humor in such a frustrating, often annoying, and usually thankless job. But did we keep our snickers and comments within those four cover-letter-papered walls? Most definitely.
Everybody that has ever been in the position of reading other’s work (with a publication or as a teacher) has complained about and laughed about the quality (or lack thereof) of the many, many manuscripts they have to trudge through. I think the line is crossed when you make
public the responses to
specific pieces, which could very well be read by that very same author. Genoways says that the criticisms did not describe the works in any recognizable way, but then no one can read the original post to decide that for themselves because it has been removed. If it was harmless and defensible, why remove it?
I’m not trying to paint the staff at
VQR as bad people, but what they did was tacky and unprofessional. And instead of sincerely apologizing, they are still defending their actions, because after all the debate, they still feel justified in their “righteous indignation.” Perhaps they could use a little more tact and a lot more humility.
Now, on a lighter note, the reason you really came here... your Irish curse of the day! (yay!)--or week:
ANOTHER STONE ON YOUR GRAVE, YOU MISERABLE WRETCH.
Happy writing.
