Display Interview

Conducted by Dan Wickett on 12/6/2004
As you may recall, I recently stumbled onto, or into, the world of Literary Blogs - websites where an individual (or in some cases, individuals) comment on a variety of things that have some link to the literary world.  The sites typically are updated daily, if not more often, and frequently allow for reader feedback, which then becomes part of the site for future readers.  

Having discovered a group of such sites that I found myself returning to regularly, I asked the bloggers at
those if they'd be willing to participate in sort of a blogger's e-panel.  They answered yes and we corresponded for a great deal of time, ending up with a fairly well documented interview of ten such bloggers.  While this correspondence was ongoing, I found other such sites that I've enjoyed as well.  While not wanting to lengthen the original blogger panel even more, I delayed asking these new fine folks if they'd be willing to partake in a similar venture until just recently.  The following have also honored me with positive responses for this second go around:

Ed Champion - The Return of the Reluctant - www.edrants.com
Michael Orthofer - The Literary Saloon - www.complete-review.com/saloon/index.htm
M.J. Rose - Buzz, Balls & Hype - www.publishersmarketplace.com/members/Bkdrsin/
Nathalie Chicha - Galleycat - www.mediabistro.com/galleycat
Lizzie Skurnick - Old Hag - www.theoldhag.com
Mad Max Perkins - Book Angst 101 - www.bookangst.blogspot.com
Kassia Krozser - Booksquare - www.booksquare.com
Megan - BookDwarf - www.bookdwarf.com
Sam Jones - Golden Rule Jones - http://goldenrulejones.blogspot.com
Lauren Cerand - Cupcake - www.cupcakeseries.com
Elizabeth Merrick - Cupcake - www.cupcakeseries.com






EWN:

Thank you all for participating and passing along information about your blogging experiences.  First of
all, as I don't see much income generation on your sites, what do you all do for a living?

Ed:

I could tell you that I throw live harmless animals into a boiling vat or that I am a recruiter for the John Birch Society, but the truth of the matter is that my vocational reality is slightly worse.  Barring the meager income generated by writing and theatrical endeavors, I labor in the mostly dishonest and remarkably venal vocation of the law.

Michael:

What I can.

M.J.:

I'm a writer. Mostly fiction. I've written five novels, the latest being The Halo Effect.

Nathalie:

I'm the anomaly; GalleyCat, owned by mediabistro.com,  covers about 70% of my rent. The other 30% comes from occasional freelance work and a negative bank balance.

Lizzie:

I used to teach undergraduate writing courses and write books for teenagers. Now, I'm a part-time editor at a magazine, an adjunct lecturer, a some-time author and a freelance critic. Still, um, very minor income generation, though.

Mad Max:

I work in book publishing.  A very demanding job, in fact.  One that leaves no time for such silliness as, say, launching and maintaining a blog.

Kassia:

While I like to pretend I lead a life of leisure, in reality, my husband and I run our own consulting firm. We mainly focus on application and web development, but lately I've been dragged back into the soap opera that is my former employer, and have been working on a major general ledger implementation. I have Google ads on the site; if they eventually generate enough to pay for hosting fees, that's a bonus. Booksquare is a lot of fun for me -- which is just as important as making lots of money.

Megan:

I am a book buyer at an independent book store in Cambridge Massachusetts.

Sam:

IT Consultant.

Lauren:

Publicity pays my bills at the moment.


Elizabeth:

I teach writing at a university, and I also teach fiction and creative nonfiction writing workshops on my own--the independent upstart spirit of blogging definitely helped me conceive the possibility of the latter.


EWN:

If you don't mind, in an attempt to determine if this ability to blog has any restrictions, what ten year
age range do you fall into?  Twenties, thirties, etc.?

Ed:

I am what one might call a child prodigy, meaning that I learned to tie my shoelaces at 26 and never looked back.

Michael:

40.

M.J.:

40 and up.

Nathalie:

I turned 25 last month. But I have the discipline of a 15-yr old boy with unmedicated ADD.

Lizzie:

Response: I am 31, started blogging the August I turned 30, when my life ended. So it's been a year and some change of a vast wasteland of keyboard and screen.

Mad Max:

Since BOOKANGST 101 is being done pseudonymously, I'd prefer not to answer.  Let's just say, I'm old enough to know better...

Kassia:

Etc. I'm starting to think I'm the oldest of the group. Since I got carded today, my ego is sufficiently pacified and I'll admit to (very) low forties.

Megan:

I am 29 and will turn 30 next September.

Sam:

40s.

Lauren:

Roaring '20's.

Elizabeth:

Geriatric thirties.


EWN:

When did you begin your blog?

Ed:

I've blogged since approximately 1997, with several retirements and at least two homicides during a seven year stretch.  The literary angle didn't come into play until 2003.

Michael:

11 August 2002.

M.J.:

Late summer 2004.

Nathalie:

GalleyCat's a kitten, about 2 1/2 months old. (My other blog - Cup of Chicha, an arts and culture blog - turns 3 in January.)

Lizzie:

See previous response.

Mad Max:

My first post was October 14, 2004.

Kassia:

Which blog? Like pennies, they just keep adding up. Sorry -- I actually restarted Booksquare as a blog last April after letting the domain lie dormant for a long time.

Megan:

I started Bookdwarf a year ago this February.  I originally started it on Blogger, but moved to my own space a few weeks later.

Sam:

October 23, 2002.

Lauren:

I came fairly late to blogging.  I had been reading blogs since about 2000, but an incident that happened to my boyfriend not long after we started dating (documented at Slate:  http://slate.msn.com/id/2070423) had a chilling effect on any inclinations I may have had at the time.  I started the Cupcake blog with my two fellow co-founders of the Cupcake reading series in Spring 2004 to extend the dialogue that we were having about women writers and the literary world on the phone, via email, and whenever we were in each other's company in person.  We thought other people - lots of other people, we suspected - would have something interesting to say about issues we thought important and valid as well, and that starting a blog would be a fun way to talk about what we like to talk about, even more.  

Elizabeth:

Lauren and I started it on a bit of a whim this spring, but then all the arguments that we have constructed in conversation over a few years came whooshing out and it was just a bit of a miracle, and a miracle that we hadn't thought of it sooner. I remember that day very clearly--we just signed up on Blogger, Lauren figured out the html, and we had such a blast, it was begun with such glee.

EWN:

How difficult was it for you to learn how to maneuver within your blog and get things looking the way you
wanted them to?

Ed:

The literary approach liberated me.  Before this, my blog was known as Plight of the Reluctant. I had posted unsettling details about my life.  You'd come to my site and read a 2,000 word essay on the tranny 
hookers and the cocker spaniels I picked up in the streets.  My personal website was no different from a LiveJournal.  But my entries were unpardonably longer and used the occasional arcane word.  Since I 
cannot refrain from writing, I felt that the world had had enough of my personal crap. So for the most part, I confined these particular outbursts to my private journal.  I didn't really hit upon the satirical angle until about a few months in.  It was always very easy to mock the New York Times.  Between Tanenhaus and the literary world, I get all the jokes I need.

Michael:

I spent a considerable amount of time figuring out how I wanted it to look before I went live with it. Since then practically nothing has been changed;  it has proved adequate for most of our purposes.  The one big debate -- comments or no comments ? -- continues, with sheer laziness a major reason why comment-capability has not been added.

M.J.:

Not hard and I am not tech savvy. I use typepad and Publisher's Lunch and both are amazingly easy.

Nathalie:

I cry myself to sleep every night, looking at GalleyCat's design. Mediabistro raps my knuckles with a ruler when I try to change it, but they're promising me a redesign in January.

Lizzie:

I use a "boyfriend" for technical matters. (When I used my "self", it went less well.) I also had a wonderful designer, Eric Gordon, create my new site. You can write him at eggd@mac.com; he's great and reasonable, and I found him at Jessica Lee Jernigan's site after he presented her with a pretty new masthead that she kvelled about.

Mad Max:

It was difficult, at times infuriating-but ultimately pretty satisfying.  I suffer from technology deficit disorder (TDD-it's a real disease, you can look it up), and furthermore had only discovered the universe of blogging itself perhaps two weeks before I launched BOOKANGST 101.  So I knew nothing.  This is then complicated by the fact that, in my heart of hearts, I've always wanted to be an art director...  So I have this strong aesthetic sensibility-notice I say strong, not necessarily elegant-which means that none of the templated sites were quite right for me. I had to fuss & nudge & alter endlessly in order to make the thing look a certain way; while being in possession of NO SKILLS WHATSOVER necessary to bring that to pass.  Which means I spent many, many, many wee-hours hours figuring it out by trial-and-error.  I'm still frustrated by how much effort the littlest thing requires, but generally I'm happy with how it turned out.

Kassia:

In the course of my work, I tested a lot of different blogging systems.  I've also worked with a wide range of larger content management systems.  When it came time to start my own, I went with WordPress without hesitation.  The software is easy to use and customize to my own personal weirdnesses.  As to
the site looking the way I want...the big project for December is to do a major redesign (which, knowing the way these things go, will take longer than I anticipate). So far, I've settled on the color scheme. It's 
progress, of sorts.

Megan:

I found it difficult at first.  My boyfriend works with computers for a living, so he helped me.  But I still find it bothersome occasionally.  Just getting the heading the way I wanted took forever.  That is why my blog looks so plain.  It's not because I am a minimalist, I just got frustrated. 

Sam:

Not too.  My design is just a minor tweak on one of the early Blogger templates.  I think I've outlasted
others who used the same template, so now people think I created this rather unimpressive thing myself.

Lauren:

I didn't find it difficult, but I had professional experience with basic HTML and an understanding of how things work online that Elizabeth and Jen didn't have yet.  It was important to create a blog that the three of us could post to from anywhere, independently, without significant technical expertise required.  I chose Blogger because - while it has its limitations, and they are immediately quite apparent - it's a user-friendly tool, and it's available free of charge to the public.

Elizabeth:

Blogger is really easy, we didn't have any problems because Lauren is a genius and explains things very slowly and clearly to me and Jen, and she is always impressed when we can, say, code something in italics. We are upgrading our website now to a more accommodating structure so that our argument (because Cupcake is largely an argument about a) the existence of widespread sexism in the publishing industry and b) the many-faceted, under-the-radar mechanisms of this sexism) is more readily accessible, so that you can get to our archives based on subject matter, etc.

EWN:

What is the significance of your site's name?

Ed:

The previous blog was known as Plight of the Reluctant.  In naming the new literary blog, I figured that "Return of the King" was hot -- in a supremely satisfying falling-off-the-radar sense of the word.  And I 
didn't know how long the blog would last.  To my great surprise, it's now been going for a year.  But make no mistake: I could disappear at any time and pop up with an entirely new title.

Michael:

The Literary Saloon is just one part of the Complete Review (which has been around since April, 1999), which was always called "A literary saloon and site of review". In adding a weblog, the name "the Literary Saloon" seemed the obvious choice -- a part of the site one can visit on a daily basis, where one get a few belts of the hard stuff. And I like a bit of that frontier mentality (as opposed to the more staid traditional literary salon).

M.J.:

I have two sites: Buzz, Balls & Hype is a blog devoted to what happens to books after they are written. Are they marketed? How? Does advertising work? Examples of same. What are innovated ways that we might sell more books in the country? The Buzz stands for word of mouth- balls is what you need to be crazy enough to go into this business of writing and care about making a living from it and hype is what doesn't work and what's pointless when it comes to getting buzz.

The site is for authors and members of the industry on the biz side.

My other blog - Backstory - is totally for readers and an effort on my part to do some viral marketing. Each week another writer posts a terrific backstory about their current novel. All I ask is that writer alert his or her email list with the url of the blog and inviting him/her to go read the backstory.

The goal is that the readers will stick around to read other backstories and come back and we'll get a robust group of readers discovering new books and new authors

Nathalie:

I'm catty, but have very bad hygiene.

Lizzie:

Mostly about how I am old and my life is over. It came to me in a flash as I turned 30.

Mad Max:

Everyone I know connected to the book business-writers, agents and everybody working on the publishing side-is frustrated, exhausted and, to varying degrees, disappointed with the ultimate results of their labors.  Not with the work ITSELF necessarily-I, for instance, can't imagine a more satisfying job than being an editor, because it draws on such a broad skill set, and because the people involved are smart and, for the most part, passionate individuals.

So why "angst"?  Well, none of the people mentioned above are happy enough often enough about the net result of a particular publication.  Everybody busts ass up and down the line, virtually every item on the No-Stones-Unturned checklist is crossed off-and yet, 9 times out of 10 something falls between the cracks.  It doesn't have to be a huge thing, either-I've got this sense that there 1,001 details that have been handled properly to even have a chance for a good outcome.  And even then, the whole enterprise ultimately depends on some weird X-factor (luck? stardust?) to push it over the top, and that's completely out of one's control, and seems only to pay the most occasional visits.  So at the end of the process, unless EVERYTHING has fallen together PERFECTLY, you wind up scratching your head and thinking (to quote Tony Soprano's mother), "it's all a big nothing."  Some tiny piece goes awry, sometimes you can identify what it was, a lot of times you can't...  The work breaks our heart, but we love it, but it breaks our heart, but we love it.  

For writers and for editors, publishing a book is like being in an abusive relationship.  We invariably wind up with a black eye, then make up excuses for why it that situation will never repeat itself ("we've learned from our mistakes"), and go back and do it all over, time after time.  You watch those t.v. movies about abusive husbands, there's always some resolute, clear-eyed heroine-Pam Dawber, Jaclyn Smith-holding the victim's hands, listening patiently, but with a resoluteness that makes it clear:  no way in hell am I letting you go back to that bastard!  What I want to know is, where's my Lindsay Wagner, whisking me off to a safe-house, promising me a new life as a C.P.A.?

Kassia:

I wish I had a clever answer. Alas, it was the result of a long discussion many years ago. The domain name I desperately wanted was locked up by someone else, and we played with all sorts of "book" ideas. For some reason, this particular name struck my fancy.

Megan:

Really, there is no significance. It's been my IM name for a few years.  A friend and I were joking around while I was registering for AIM about nerdy names.  Surprisingly, bookelf and bookgnome were taken.  So I am Bookdwarf.  It's nothing but a nod to my nerdiness.

Sam:

Before he became one of the better-known politicians of the Progressive Era (1880-1920), Samuel "Golden
Rule" Jones was a literature-loving businessman.  Like me, sort of.

Lauren:

People always ask, and the short answer is:  nothing. It's an extension of the reading series Cupcake, the name of which is supposed to be rather ironic, at least it used to be, but now it doesn't really mean anything.  Also, everyone likes cupcakes. It sounded fun.

Elizabeth:

Actually I wouldn't say it's nothing--it's a play on a diminutive term for a woman, and it was fun. Plus we must have had a premonition of the nickname of the prison they sent Martha Stewart to: Camp Cupcake.

EWN:

Are you able to track traffic?  If so, what's the average amount of hits per day your site receives?

Ed:

I'm capable of tracking it, but I loathe this is a qualifier.  Because when you're worried about hits, it becomes less about personal honesty and more about how hep you are with the kids.  I find that dwelling upon hits corrupts the writing process. So I've deliberately made it very difficult and time-consuming for me to access my logs.  However, at last glance, it appears that approximately 2,000-3,000 unique visitors check my site out each day.

Michael:

Reliable figures seem hard to come by, but a range of 250 to 500 unique visitors daily seems in the ballpark, with a nice upward trend again over the past few months. (However, the Literary Saloon remains a tiny part of the Complete Review: rarely do anywhere near 10% of daily visitors to the site make their way there.)

M.J.:

Yes. Buzz gets about 300 people a day.

Backstory gets about 100.

And both grow a bit each week. Which makes me happy.

Nathalie:

Mediabistro promises to install a web stats package for me soon. (Cup of Chicha, back when I was updating it daily, got about 2,000 unique visitors and 6,000 page views per day.)

Lizzie:

On my old site, I had a very goofy tracker that claimed I had anywhere from 500 to 1,000 visitors a day -- I think my height was about 2500 when I was linked on Fark. I took a semi-hiatus this summer (with a wonderful pitch-hitter, Jimmy Beck), and since my new site is up it seems to be in the 300 to 400 range of unique visitors with 12 zillion hits, which is mostly because of all the individual elements on each page. The fact that my host died and I have to move sites AGAIN soon will probably reduce it to something like 12.

Mad Max:

Between 250-300 hits a day, something like that.  Obviously I'm setting the world on fire.

Kassia:

I track traffic on a per user/visitor basis, but don't (obsessively) track every page the users hit. Tracking traffic can be an art form - unique visitors is probably the most accurate gauge. On a good day, traffic is 
in excess of 500. On a really good day (like when Michael Cader mentions the site, for which I'm eternally grateful and excited), it tracks closer to 1,000. Somehow, there's just enough accountant in me to view the 
numbers as trends. Traffic is steadily increasing, and I'm seeing a solid regular readership which makes me really happy. There were a few days in the beginning where I felt like I was blogging in the forest.

Megan:

I just checked and I've been getting about 1000 hits a day.  It's up a lot since August.

Sam:

Yes, I use Site Meter to track visits.  It's typically in the low hundreds per day.  When it starts to climb
I go away for a month and when I return, voila -- it's back to normal.  It feels about right to me. 

Lauren:

Our site is viewed a few hundred times each day, mostly by visitors affiliated with the media and publishing industries, and educational institutions.  Our traffic doubles, at least, mid-month around the
date of the reading series, and it's consistently on the rise as more people discover the blog every day. 

EWN:

How much time do you spend on average per day on your site?

Ed:

This may sound presumptuous, but I try to spend as little as possible, if only because I have too many things going on.  But my daily time generally ranges between 45 minutes to three hours, most of this on 
the clock.  It helps that I type fast and that I'm far too passionate about books.

Michael:

Way too much and far too little. I like to think that running the weblog basically amounts to collecting information I'd like to have anyway, but the temptation to hunt for more can be very great.  And there are many stories I'd like to cover in more depth, etc.

M.J.:

Probably four hours a week. I don't do the blogs every day.

Nathalie:

Reading the last blogger panel, I wanted to die. CAAF said 1 to 3 hours per day.  Mark said 30-45 minutes could take care of 12-15 posts. Daily, I spend 30-45 minutes rewriting a sentence 12 times. I also spend about 3-4 hours reading book-related news and articles, most of which never makes it to the site.

Lizzie:

Depends how desperately bored I am. I used to blog a number of items I'd flagged very dutifully after work. Lately I am so busy on income generation, it's more catch-as-catch can. I'd say an hour on my own site, 23 reading other sites.

Kassia:

You want an honest answer here, I suppose. I tell certain members of my family that it's no more than an hour; some days, that's so close the truth, it hardly counts as a lie. I'd guess it's usually closer to two. I read
articles and write something about them, and that takes time. I like to discuss whatever point in the article particularly captured my imagination.

Megan:

A few hours at least.  I do it at work, so some days it is more than others.   That's also why I don't talk about it at work.  No one really knows in my office, but some of the booksellers do.  The posting doesn't take too long, but updating the books and music I read takes some time.  Plus all the reading I do to get content.  How do I get any work done at all?

Sam:

I've found that it takes about four hours a day to do it right.  I spend about an hour every other day.

Lauren:

About an hour to cover the basics on any given day, and perhaps 20-30 minutes more if something compelling catches my eye. Of the three of us, I blog most frequently, because I am used to writing many
different things quickly in a short and snappy manner -- not necessarily an admirable skill, but a useful one.  I also read the most blogs. Jen doesn't blog much, but when she does, her posts are hilarious and meaningful.  She's writing a book and working two jobs, and considering a (temporary, she assures us) move to an island on the other side of the world. Elizabeth is getting her novel, Girly, ready for publication, and teaching several ongoing creative writing workshops at any given time, so she aims to post longer, thoughtful pieces 1-2 times per week. I think our different approaches create a balance for the site's perspective, and also, we can all get a break when we need it.

Elizabeth:

It is really helpful to have three of us. I must admit--I have barely written my own fiction since we started the blog, and I do think the blog has rewired my brain to an even shorter attention span. I worry about this, but I think I can remedy it with a few months at an artist residency at some point in the utopic future. There were two months when Lauren was off in the spring when I was doing it alone and it was a little too much for me. Often, still, though, I wake up and the first thing I do is write a blog post. The blog must be fed.

EWN:

Who is your intended audience, and who do you believe your actual audience has been so far?

Ed:

I've never really had an intended audience.  The blog started as a way for me to keep tabs on literary news (e.g., to actually remember how to spell the name of that angry Japanese lady reviewing books for the Times), but I've never catered to anybody, save those who like corny humor, those who are capable of reading between the lines, and those who give a damn about literature.  Which apparently is a lot of cool cats.

Michael:

I am the primary intended audience (along with the rest of the Complete Review 'staff'): I look for and post the information that is of interest to me. To a lesser extent, the Complete Review audience generally is taken into account, as I make an effort to provide additional information at the weblog about books and authors under review at the CR (since I assume that is what visitors to the CR might be interested in). It's very hard to gauge the actual audience beyond the core group of literary-weblog-readers. I do think
it's safe to assume that only those with a strong interest in literature (especially foreign literature) and the literary scene would be regulars.

M.J.:

Buzz - authors and publishers - and I think that's who is coming.

Backspace - readers and I think readers are coming but so are authors. Which is grand since they are readers too.

Nathalie:

Elizabeth Spiers, my new boss at mediabistro, wants to shift the focus of GalleyCat towards the pub industry and industry gossip. So, the target audience, eventually, will be editors, agents, etc. Currently, though, my target - and actual - audience is probably other lit bloggers.

Lizzie:

I actually had no idea anyone would read it at all, but now I am shooting for anyone with a really nice house abroad, say, in Switzerland or Denmark, with a private chef of something, who would like a bookish visitor to quote Auden and make cutting remarks about Jonathan Franzen for a few months.

Mad Max:

Writers make up about 70% of the visits, publishing people (including agents) another 20%.  I wish the publishing number were higher, because what I'd hoped was that this would be a place not just where writers can learn about how publishers really think, but also a place where there could be some cross-pollination among industry folks-especially in terms of marketing.  Maybe that'll happen.  On the other hand, everybody in publishing is too damn busy for something like this.  Present company included.

Kassia:

When I started the blog, I was pretty fixed on focusing on writing and publishing. Others do the reader angle far better than I ever could. My audience is primarily other writers -- based on comments, traffic in
response to specific articles, and search phrases used to get to the site.  Writing about writing allows me to make all sorts of cool connections between what I do and other art and entertainment forms, and I think 
it's fun for my readers to see how, well, normal they are (either that or it bolsters their belief that all artists are a little bit crazy).

Megan:

I want to write for anyone who reads books, although I sometimes fear I end up being read by friends and family only. I would definitely like it if someone reading my site were to find a new author or a new book they wouldn't have without me.

Sam:

I didn't think much about audience when I started out.   I've been surprised by how many of my readers come from outside Chicago (judging by Site Meter's time zone data).  Less than half are from the Chicago area.
 
About a third of the people who visit GRJ get there via Google or another search engine.  Many Googlers
find my site searching for the phrase, "Ingratitude, the vilest weed that grows."  I guess that surprised
me too.

Lauren:

Stodgy old guys who went to Yale and don't think women have what it takes (and their protégés). Writers, especially, and the decision makers who can make a difference in the level of success that women
writers attain in both the literary canon and the marketplace: editors, agents, and, most of all, readers.  I'd say that we get a lot more of the last three than the first category, but that has as much to do with my opinion that the really Old Guard hasn't discovered blogs yet than it does with the content of our particular site.

Elizabeth:

Yes. I would also say specifically the women writers and journalists who are so slammed by the crappy pay and the struggle to get freelance gigs/agents/ attention/published that they haven't had time to pay much attention too the fact that their lack of a decent paycheck is institutionalized.

EWN:

What do you hope to accomplish with your efforts?

Ed:

To be serious for a moment, I'm extremely concerned with Sam Tanenhaus's dumbing down of the NYTBR.  I'm very worried that countless literary wunderkinds are being left in the dustheap because they are either too "difficult," too avant-garde, or, heaven forfend, too literary.  It breaks my heart to see that book culture is in the hands of a hoary septuagenarian elite completely out of touch with the American public, and that reading is considered to be a BAD thing amongst youth and minorities.  There's a part of me that hopes my juxtaposition with a sort of old-school, pre-neocon Dennis Miller vibe will get people paying attention to these startling changes, while simultaneously conveying the idea that books are cool, goddammit.  Can a blog do this?  Probably not.  But at least we can have a good time along the way and hold Laura Miller's feet to the fire in the process.

Michael:

a) to find out about books that might be of interest to me, b) to inform readers about books, authors, and literary events that might be of interest to them, and c) to entertain visitors

M.J.:

See above in what the names mean.

Nathalie:

At the very least, I hope readers find GalleyCat entertaining. So little in the media makes any real sense, and I try to treat its output as my comic foil; a good articulation of a bad article's contradictions turns analysis into comedy.

Lizzie:

See previous response.

Mad Max:

As I said above, I'd hoped this would be a place where writers could become better educated about the publishing process (from the inside), and also a place where there could be some cross-pollination among industry folks-especially in terms of marketing.  

We need to come up with some new approaches if our industry is going to stay vibrant and profitable.  And I'm not so brilliant that I've been able to do that on my own, but I know a few things, and have a few ideas, and know a few smart people-so maybe if I can facilitate a bit of brainstorming, and the conversation includes more voices than is ordinarily the case, who knows?  Maybe an Associate Editor or a Marketing Assistant is going to come up with an idea that will enliven all of us.  

The "reading line" for my blog is "Max Perkins, He Dead-So What Next?"  Point being, that supposed Golden Age of publishing has passed and it ain't coming back.  So let's acknowledge the realities we face today-many of which (the tremendous influence of the chains, the conglomeration of the industry, the "flowering" of MFA programs-now THERE's a topic that should be higher on the Abominations List than it is) that Maxwell Perkins and his ilk didn't have to contend with-and try to move forward productively.  

To be honest, I'm sick to death of all the whining that one encounters on so many of these writer-to-writer blogs & websites, talking about how publishers don't give a shit about authors, and how nobody's interested in anything but the next John Grisham, and how the "values" of yesteryear have been subverted by corporate culture and it's all about the bottom line and so forth.  Newsflash:  publishing is a business.  And always has been.  Have the circumstances changed?  Absolutely.  Is whining about it going to help your career?  Not one iota.  As an author, it's not enough anymore (if it ever was) to write a great book; you've got to be an active player in selling it. This is a message that a number of author/bloggers have addressed aggressively-M.J. Rose comes to mind especially-but because there weren't any publishing voices in the conversation, the tone has taken on a decidedly us-versus-them mentality that's not good for either party.

Kassia:

World domination. If not that then, a good time. I'm easy.

Megan:

I want to expand coverage of books beyond the popular ones.  If I like a book I'll talk about it, but especially if I think the Times or other lit-bloggers have missed it, I want to encourage people to read it more. There's not as much I can add to the discussion about a book that's got a hundred reviews already.

Sam:

I travel a lot on business and I got tired of missing readings I wanted to see because the local papers only
list them a week in advance.  So I started keeping my own list.  Then I thought, why not share it via the
web?  I also thought it would be fun to see how many readings of serious fiction, poetry, and criticism we
have in Chicago in a given year. (Answer: 500.)  About a year after I started, I discovered other literary
blogs via the Literary Saloon, and then was inspired to post more frequently.  Lately I've been a little
more reticent. What was the question?

Chicago's funny in that you have to live here for ten years to know what's going on.  Arts organizations of
all kinds are just awful at publicizing what they do.  The papers generally don't care either, except for our
local free weekly, The Reader.  So if I have any objective it's to help publicize Chicago's great literary scene.  My opinions are your FREE bonus.

Lauren:

Long-term: Nothing less than a full-blown revolution. Mid-range: Go on Oprah! Short term: We'd like to create more opportunities for women writers (including us, of course) to make their voices heard.

Elizabeth:

Yes. Also--I got so sick of explaining the sexism in conversations, you know, at a cocktail party or something--the sexism in the publishing industry is a major emporer's-new-clothes situation so the second you make a nod to it, people tend to either want to agree with you or get in an argument with you about it. I want the entire Cupcake argument online so that I can just give someone a web address and talk about more social, festive things.

EWN:

Why you?  

Ed:

Back in 2003, I received a very friendly email from a Nigerian.  Apparently, one of his foreign customers had just died and his next of kin hadn't arrived to carry on the dead man's legacy.  This Nigerian requested that I assist him in doing one of two things: transferring $47,500,000 or starting a literary blog.  I was a bit 
skeptical about the money, but the Nigerian managed to convince me that I was the chosen one.  So it was never really my decision at all, but the Nigerian's.

Michael:

Who else ? When I started there were relatively few literary weblogs, and while I enjoyed Moby Lives, Bookslut, splinters, etc. they often didn't cover what was of greatest interest to me. So I figured I'd find and 
collect it myself. The situation is much better now, but I think there's still a place for the Literary Saloon (and, indeed, for a lot more literary weblogs).

M.J.:

For Buzz - I was in advertising for 13 years - the last few as the creative director of a 100 million dollar agency in NYC. And I handled one of the few publishers - who at the time - or ever - actually hired a major agency to do book advertising. In addition, I have written two non fiction books on marketing books and teach a class on same.  

For Backstory - someone had to come up with it - I wanted it to be a TV show first but couldn't persuade anyone to give me a try. Then I wanted it to be a radio show. Finally I gave up and just did it as a blog.

Nathalie:

As a teen, I spent my weekends reading book reviews and taking notes on literary journals I wanted to submit stories to. I think my biography's narrative arch requires lit blogging.

Lizzie:

EVERYONE asks me that, even my parents, since I was born.  I've never been able to come up with a good answer.

Mad Max:

Well, nobody else was doing it.  I mean, every editor who's ever spoken to a group of writers in the last decade has been engaged in aspects of this conversation, and we're all engaged in it constantly with our individual authors.  But nobody that I knew of was doing providing a forum for an ongoing conversation.  And then there's the fact that I tend to have strong opinions about various aspects of publishing, gut impressions-but no real "data" to support them.  So I'm personally hungry to learn more, and this seems like a good opportunity for that too.

Kassia:

Because I'm good...Actually, I'm really geeky about writing about writing. I tend to over-intellectualize everything (this is not a trait I consider one of my best), and Booksquare is a place for me to exercise (and 
sometimes exorcise) my obsessions.

Also, I spent ten years working for a major motion picture studio doing a specific type of contractual reporting. Royalty accounting is a subset of participations (the official Hollywood term for what Eddie Murphy called "monkey points"), so I come into this with a pretty strong background in the business aspects of publishing and distribution. I (and this is a secret) derive pleasure from reading contracts and statements...if you're ever seeking incredibly dull dinner conversation, ask me about reserves for
returns.


Megan:

I work with books every day, I read books every day, I read faster than anyone I know. I'm pretty much obsessed, so starting a web page about it seemed to be a pretty natural outlet for sharing that energy with people. I guess the immediate impulse was that I'd been reading some of the other literary websites and my
boyfriend ("Mr. Bookdwarf") kept saying I should go ahead and start one to put my perspective in.

Sam:

First, it's fun.  Second, it supports my best habits -- reading, writing, thinking, etc. I've even learned
things about myself I wasn't really conscious of: for example, I never realized I was so interested in
poetry and foreign-language fiction, relative to other kinds of lit.  Finally, it has allowed me to bore
distant people instead of those nearby who could do me more direct harm.

Lauren:

Because I'm not afraid to use my real name.

Elizabeth:

Because I've been paying close attention for so long of the struggles of many women writers (including myself) to get published, get tenure-track jobs, win awards, etc., and because I am past the point of being bitter and can have a good time with it now: we are starting our own little literary world at Cupcake and we are having a blast.

EWN:

What do you consider an Emerging Writer to be?  (Yes, a pathetic attempt to drag my own site into this conversation).

Ed:

Someone who has spent years of his life reading hard, writing hard, developing her voice, and who is prepared to expand the horizons of literature to the best of her abilities.  It is not enough to have plotting, prose, and characterization down.  What matters is if you are prepared to up the emotional ante to the next level.

Michael:

The American literary world, where a single story or novel seems to be enough to make you an established literary (and a literary establishment) figure, doesn't seem to allow for much "emerging" -- it's  Pop ! and 
you're there. 'Emerging' to me suggests not yet fully formed; David Mitchell is probably the most prominent author I would consider 'emerging' right now. He hasn't won me over completely yet, but I think he's shown a lot of potential and I am interested in what he'll do next. (I think he's an 'emerging' author, rather than an established one -- despite his early success -- because I think he's still very much a developing writer, and it's unclear where exactly he'll go (and I'm not yet convinced he'll make it)). The 
only other one that comes to mind is Austrian writer Daniel Kehlmann (none of whose works have been translated into English yet) -- but what I'm really waiting for is the many established foreign-language authors to emerge in English translation .....

M.J.:

A site devoted to getting attention for emerging writers and giving them advice and info.

Nathalie:

Talent usually requires an awareness of literary context; and a lack of that awareness dooms a writer, but also allows him the confidence unique to ignorance.

So, in deciding what qualifies a writer as "Emerging," my first impulse  is to guard the "Emerging Writer" title against literary delusion (i.e., no affiliation with a badly/self-consciously titled lit mag: Artragous Women, Papier-Machete, Subtle Tea, Verbal Abuse, etc.).

But, since reading EWN signals the kind of awareness I'm talking about, my best definition would probably be quasi- circular: your site's title designates its audience.

Lizzie:

To be serious for a second, I've actually learned about a lot of new poets from my workshop this semester after requiring my students to bring in some excerpts from journals (requiring students to do research, so best.) We talked about Hailey Leithauser, Ingrid Wendt, Paisley Rekdal, Catherine Bowman, some other great poets. My students' own work impressed me, too. So I guess I consider an emerging writer to be someone who's developing an interesting body of work but hasn't published 8,000 books yet.

Kassia:

You know, I've thought about this since you did the first interviews. I move between two thoughts. First, emerging writers are those on the edges of the big time. They're generating critical buzz and maybe building a larger readership. They're also the writers who are trying new directions -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not, but I'd rather read something that tries to push boundaries than something that plays it safe.

My other vision of an emerging writer is the unpublished author on the verge. Very few authors sell their first-ever-written book (and if you do manage to succeed at this, don't tell me). There's definitely a huge
learning curve. As you grow more skilled and more sophisticated, you tend to look at the business and art of writing differently. These are the writers who are moving to a new level.

Megan:

Well, a fully emerged writer is one who has a pretty defined voice, and has found an audience. So, someone who is still finding a voice and an audience?

Sam:

An emerging writer is someone who has published one or two books but hasn't found an audience.  If you've published less than one book, you're an aspiring writer.  If you've published more than two books,
you're basically emerged, although your carapace may not be completely hardened.  

In Belgium it's different, apparently.  Jean-Philippe Toussaint is still "promising" after twenty years and
seven books.  I like Toussaint, but what's with that?

Lauren:

A person of obvious literary talent who is just beginning to realize newfound opportunities for creative growth and success.

Elizabeth:

Good question! I think there's a big range in there--you could have a few books under your belt and still be an emerging writer. Or you could be just starting. We are all emerging. Maybe even anyone who is not at that media maelstrom level is still emerging--emerging is the state of choice, no? Sort of like Madonna's career instead of Philip Roth's (did I just type that sentence?): she reinvents herself constantly rather than becoming a one-trick-pony.

EWN:

Who is the one author that you enjoy to the point that you're probably plugging/suggesting him or her nearly once a week on your site?

Ed:

Two answers.  David Mitchell, a wonderful novelist who I became utterly enamored with after obtaining an early copy of "Cloud Atlas" (and who I then went on to interview), and John P. Marquand, the overlooked satirist who appears primed for a John O'Hara-like comeback.

Michael:

No one author, though if we feel someone is being ignored (recently: Imre Kertesz, previously: Ahmadou Kourouma) we'll keep reminding readers about the author. Authors that I go out of my way to plug include: Amélie Nothomb, Harry Mulisch, Iain Sinclair, and Arno Schmidt.

M.J.:

One?  Well, I'm not plugging him/her at Buzz, because Buzz isn't about that.  But most of the authors I'm inviting to Backstory are favorites. So just keep coming back to see whose there and you'll know.

Nathalie:

GalleyCat isn't my mouthpiece -- or, to the extent that GC can't really be anything else, I like to think it relays my sensibilities but not my preferences. And, even on Cup of Chicha, I've always been hesitant to plug my favorite authors or review their books. The more something means to me, the more subjective - and deeply autobiographical - my preference for it feels. I'm a very selfish reader; I don't read for any experience of "escape," but rather to find as many examples I can of an inner life similar to my own.

Lizzie:

Oh my God, JOHN P. MARQUAND. He's dead, I think, and you can only find his books in used book stores. They're all about WWII, stiff young men, callow and bitter women. They do not show their age at all. Also, Richard Yates. Alice Munro. And I found "We Need to Talk About Kevin" by Lionel Shriver, "The Wife" by Meg Wolizer, and Zoe Heller's "What Was She Thinking?" quite delightful. Kay Ryan's "Say Uncle." All Elizabeth Bishop. I'll stop now. Nella Larsen, if you've never read her.

Kassia:

Hmm, since I focus more on the writing aspect of things, I don't necessarily plug authors (though I will admit to more-than-frequent mentions of Neal Stephenson, Cory Doctorow, and Edith Wharton). I write women's fiction, so I do tend to focus on that genre in my postings, but I read everything and look to all sorts of things for inspiration. Looking at this question from another angle, I like to harp on certain business issues relevant to authors: understanding their contracts and statements, copyright, and new distribution channels. I should probably stop admitting this stuff.

Megan:

You don't read my site enough to know that? My crush on David Mitchell makes my boyfriend pretty jealous.

Sam:

It varies.  It was Naipaul for a while, then it was Coetzee.  I can't think of anyone I've been going on
about lately.  If I didn't restrain myself, my blog would be all Samuel Johnson, Flann O'Brien, and Robert
Walser, all the time.

Lauren:

With Cupcakes, you can't have just one: We really love Hannah Tinti, both as an author (Animal Crackers) and an editor (One Story). Jami Attenberg was our first two-time Cupcake reader, and one of the
original supporters of both the reading series and the blog.  She's always coming up with a fresh take or new endeavor that we can't resist mentioning. I personally loved Jenny Davidson's novel, Heredity, and frequently link to her blog, which is always smart and clever. And of course, Maud Newton, whose novel I'm dying to read when it comes out.  All of the above-mentioned writers have read at Cupcake, and we do our best to promote everyone who has ever read at the series. 

Elizabeth:

Yes.

EWN:

There's a bit of a clickish nature at times between the blogs - what with the links and comments and
references back and forth on a daily basis.  What idea can you admit to having copped from another site?

Ed:

The photographic juxtaposition was inspired by Low Culture.  Much as I hate to admit it, I think pre-sanctimonious Neal Pollack is a slight influence.  I am humbled by Maud Newton's clarity (simple language is mostly beyond my powers, but I'm working on it).  I think Moby Lives' pithy paragraph style has found its way into some of my news breakdowns.

Michael:

A handful of stories/ideas a week, but I think that's about it.

M.J.:

No one idea - but simply - I never would have blogged if I hadn't discover blogs.

Nathalie:

Old Hag used to post very funny round-ups of Publishers Lunch's weekly deals report. On occasion, I've done similar round-ups for GalleyCat, cursing myself as I wrote them for not being as funny as OH's Lizzie.

Lizzie:

Listen, I CANNOT COME UP WITH ORIGINAL CONTENT ON MY OWN.  Also, I get bored and like to chat. We don't have other housewives to drop on; we don't have cocktail parties; there are no more town square concerts. So we're a digital klatch.

Kassia:

Yeah, I know -- how is that everyone else has more time to play than me?  What am I doing wrong in my life? I think the links and comments reflect the nature of blogging (though litblogs tend to use technical tricks like trackbacks less than other types of blogs). You also develop (or maintain, depending) friendships with other people, and if writing is your favored way of communication, well, commenting, etc. is a natural extension of that process. Blogging invites community, and I think that's what draws so many people to blogs.

As for copping from other sites, I'm always reading posts and either building on them or disagreeing with them. Recently, Sarah Weinman wrote something about transcending genre that sparked something for me, so I used her article (properly attributed, of course) as a starting point for a piece of my own. I do this a lot -- ideas come from all places, and it's a lot of fun to read an article that inspires me.

Megan:

I try to avoid doing that-- I think a lot of the people who read my page already read the "top tier" litblogs, so I mostly try and post things that they haven't done yet. Sometimes, I'll post something they've covered if we both happen upon it, but really if I'm getting it from them I'll just cite them.

Sam:

I can't think of an idea I've taken from someone else.   But I'm always very envious when someone writes
something that's both insightful and hilarious.  I would always steal that if I could get away with it. 
Maud/Stephany, CAAF, Rake, Sean, and the Ninjas: you guys are on notice.

Lauren:

We don't get linked that often, although that's changed for the better lately, and also, Dan, you're one of the few people who comments on our blog. So if there is a clique involved, it's really in the sense that because I write one blog with two co-authors, we tend to keep our inside jokes and occasional disagreements mostly private. There is a lot of off-blog chatter amongst the three of us that would probably get published if we each had our own lit-blog. I would love to post accounts of celebrity starfucking, a la Gawker - except literary - but I unfortunately don't come across them as often as I might prefer.

Elizabeth:

When posts on other blogs are pertinent to the Cupcake argument, we link them, and we do love so many bloggers--we had a Ladies Who Blog Cupcake event with eight bloggers reading their own work. Lauren is very good at the linking--I could never in my life stay on top of what is going on in all the blogs we like very much. I sort of do these little thoughtful rants once in awhile instead.

EWN:

What innovative idea have you employed, or do you plan on using, at your site?  i.e. - author keys, guest
bloggers, guest reviewers, dueling viewpoints, updates :) etc.

Ed:

The audio-based Bat Segundo Show is a new offering that I hope will make a difference.  The advantage that literary blogs has over newspapers is that it's very easy for us to employ video and audio elements, as well as have almost instantaneous feedback.  They can't.  I'd like to see more literary blogs employ this kind of thing, but as far as I can tell, I'm the only literary blog posting audio, which seems a complete pity.  I, for one, would love to hear Ron Hogan talking with the authors he interviews.

Michael:

Alas, the Literary Saloon is not very innovative (and reviews and other longer piece have their place elsewhere at the Complete Review) - even allowing user-comments is beyond us at this time. Not very innovative, but we are among the few literary weblogs that tries (and generally manages) to offer new content seven days a week; many take at least a one day break.  Likeliest innovation: the occasional poll.

M.J.:

The most innovative idea - I think- is Backstory as a whole. It's a blog without my voice at all. Only for the other writers and their readers and it's using a new way of viral marketing to build itself.

For Buzz - not much that is innovative - except the subject matter - no one else in publishing has a marketing blog - but I do plan on doing dueling viewpoints any week now. The devil and I will be arguing why publishing is killing books. 

I plan to do more dueling viewpoints.

Nathalie:

I'd like to continue doing meta-reviews, comparing publications' reviews of the current "it" book. But, in the next couple months, GC will be moving away from links & article summaries, and towards more first-hand reporting (from interviews and coverage of industry "controversies" to party wrap-ups and book biz 
gossip).

Lizzie:

I am not as wonderful as my colleagues and will only do such things for money. I just try to look pretty and say "fuck" a lot. Also, though, I try to just write about what I'm interested in. If you let the vast FLOOD of information pour upon your head any given day, you will collapse under the pressure.

Mad Max:

I'd like to get a lot more industry insiders to share their views-it's hard, because they don't know who I am, don't know whether or not I'm some crank-pot; if you're Michael Pietsch or Binky Urban and you get an email from some "Mad Max Perkins" asking you to talk turkey about your business, chances are you're going to say no.  Or more likely you'll just ignore me altogether-you've got to remember how incredibly busy these people are.  Plus they're leery of the "press" anyway, even reporters they have a history with...  

One of the ways that I've gotten people to co-operate is by guaranteeing their anonymity.  Obviously there was some concern initially about whether or not I could be depended on, but I've been true to my word and hopefully people will notice that and be more comfortable.

Kassia:

I had a guest blogger and that was a lot of fun. I'll be doing that again very soon (it's not so much a lack of opportunity as it is getting my act together). I think reading other voices or viewpoints is a benefit to my
readers, especially when I can find someone with expertise beyond my own.

Megan:

I did post audio of that Gorra-Wood event, but it was so long I'm not sure anyone listened to it. I might try and do more audio in the future, but probably shorter-- or maybe transcripts.

Sam:

I can't think if an innovative idea, but sometimes other bloggers show me that you can do things I didn't
think would work on a blog.  For example, I doubt I'd have done an interview if I hadn't seen the interviews
Mark Sarvas has done.  

One thing I do more systematically than others is my literary events list, but I'd hardly call that
innovative.  I've long planned to do a translation of Carl Seelig's Wanderungen mit Robert Walser in serial
form, in the hope that readers will correct my homemade German, but I haven't worked up the nerve
yet.

Lauren:

First, we are currently working with a professional designer on an epic reworking of the site that should launch early next year, with many ambitious new features that we have promised for months and not yet delivered, so I won't mention them again here.  Second, we are always open to guest commentary, editorials, and reportage, and commission pieces whenever the mood strikes us.  Third, we have discussed serializing an excerpt of Elizabeth's novel, in lieu of posting separate items, for a week or two at some point in the near future.  We're definitely exploring new ways to advance the conversation.

EWN:

Have you had much feedback from the literary establishment?  Authors, publishers, and the like?

Ed:

Publicists and self-published authors alike contact me every week.  Sometimes, it's good.  Sometimes, it's bad.  However, I particularly enjoy the surprise correspondence I receive from Certain People Who Shall Remain Unnamed and Willingly Dish Out Confidential Dirt.

Michael:

I've been fairly surprised by the literary establishment feedback to the Literary Saloon. Numerous literary editors and journalists have let me know that they are regular readers, as have a surprising number of authors. The largest feedback-category, however, is of journalists, authors, and others whose names we've mentioned (or quoted their articles, etc.) who apparently obsessively Google themselves and come across the site that way (without generally having ever heard of it before).

M.J.:

Yes. And please, keep them coming. I love getting feedback.

Nathalie:

I'm on lots of mailing lists. I guess that's something. Also - my published friends say they read the blog and like it, and, sometimes, I half-believe them.

Lizzie:

I've actually gotten many fancy freelance jobs and connections from my blog or bloggish connections. Sadly, this has reduced my blogging time. Once I can figure out what to write a real book about, I will write it. Or if someone would just like me to write one on a particular plot cluster, I can do that too.

Mad Max:

Tons of feedback from writers and bloggers, most of it enormously positive.  Haven't heard much one way or another from others in the industry. 

Kassia:

Surprisingly, yes. I posted something silly about an editor leaving her position seemingly suddenly and speculated on all sorts of nefarious plots (if I can't amuse myself...). Both an agent who knows the editor and the editor posted comments on her new position at another publisher. I thought that was really great wonderful because it got the needed information out to my readers. I see a lot of traffic from publishers and publications.  Since it often appears to be repeat traffic, it seems I'm offering information of some benefit to those audiences (which is something I hadn't really considered until now).

Megan:

Actually, it's something new that's been happening to me, and I'm not sure how to respond to it. Several authors have sent me email asking me to review their books, and I don't know what to do: if I accept a book, is that basically promising to review it on the site? What if I don't like it? These aren't top-tier authors, they're getting started-- "emerging" I guess-- and they might not have a good voice, or I might not be the right audience. But the authors have decided that weblogs are influential in the literary scene, so they want to influence the influencers. Publishers haven't contacted me yet: I think the authors who do are those with little support from their publishers. 

Sam:

Yes, I've heard from both authors and publishers - mostly thanks for mentioning their books.  No "get a
life" messages from the Franz Wrights of the world, fortunately.

Lauren:

Yes, definitely, and the vast majority of it has been tremendously positive.  Even some people who don't agree with our central argument - that women are shamefully underrepresented in the upper echelons of
American letters - have told me that they read the blog regularly, or plan to, which I think is an achievement in itself.

Elizabeth:

My favorite is this look of recognition and relief from other women writers--the excitement in their voices when they tell me they count the bylines too.

EWN:

Not that you are necessarily looking for it, but do you believe having a well-done, highly respected Lit.
Blog will lead to job offers in the future within the literary industry?

Ed:

I certainly hope so, but let's be realistic.  Our style isn't exactly what the big dogs want.  There is too much knowledge, humor, intellectual credibility, and genuine passion within the litblog community for them to actually employ us on a regular basis.  It's too much for their audience.   Their audience (or, more specifically, the moneymen who speculate upon this) want a book review section devoid of conflict, bona-fide truth and honest appraisal.  The big dogs want idiotic commentary along the lines of the Book Babes, where no one rocks the boat, and, even worse, no one places contemporary literature into context.  It's either that or hatchet jobs along the lines of Wieselter.

Michael:

I'm not sure the Literary Saloon is highly respected (though I like to think it's fairly well-done). Given how dumbfounded I am, from a business point of view, at how publishing houses are run, and how irritating I find the personality- (i.e. author-) based focus of almost all literary coverage in what passes for the literary media I don't think I'd be a good fit in 'the literary industry', and so I am not expecting any phone calls soon.  (Fortunately, my fringe-establishment serves my purposes well enough.)

M.J.:

It can - I was not looking for job offers but I have already been offered one great opportunity to help a publisher do some marketing and would welcome other requests if the price was right. As much as I love writing, I don't mind taking occasional breaks to brainstorm, esp. when we are in such a crucial point right now with fewer and fewer people reading every year.

Nathalie:

I'd love for magazine or newspaper editors to throw reviews or culture pieces my way, but, having just graduated from a MFA program, I feel like I'm still entitled - for a couple more months, at least - to be a fiction writer, without a full-time job in view. (GalleyCat is - in terms of pay, if not hours - very 
part-time.)

Lizzie:

Having already worked in many of them, I can report that there are no "jobs" in the literary industry. It beats splitting rocks, though.

Kassia:

Not so much job offers as building a, to sound crass, platform. I write fiction (some days better than others), so having a regular readership isn't a bad thing. 

Megan:

I already have a job in the literary industry! I wouldn't necessarily reject a job offer out-of-hand, but I am perfectly happy where I am. If they'd pay me to read and review full-time, I'd at least consider it.

Sam:

Another job is the last thing I need.  Actually, even if I wanted another job, a dime-a-dozen computer geek
like me couldn't afford to do anything in the literary industry without making ridiculous financial
concessions.  Crazy, isn't it?  Still, that fact allows me to blog in a state of (almost) perfect freedom and disinterestedness -- something I can say about few other things in life.

Lauren:

I'm counting on it.

Elizabeth:

We're creating our own lit industry outside of the lit industry: we are going to start our own little publishing imprint at Cupcake. Partially through this blog, it's become very clear to me that the farther I get outside the box of literariness and publishing, the happier and more successful I become.

EWN:

There have been some recent articles about bloggers in the print world.  What do you think the journalistic public is still getting wrong about LitBlogging?

Ed:

I'm sick of the Algonquin circle metaphor, largely because it's unfounded.  I haven't yet had a drink with the Old Hag, nor have I published anything in Vanity Fair or Vogue.

Michael:

They perhaps don't convey the extent of it, focusing on a few prominent weblogs rather than digging deeper into what's out there. But the coverage has generally seemed adequate to me.

M.J.:

The idea that every writer should have a blog and that every blog is blogworthy. These are, in many cases just open diaries, and not all that amazing.

On the other hand, Maud Newton, Elegant Variation, Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind, Flogging The Quill, BookAngst, Bookbitch, Old Hag, and Beatrice are really important blogs as far as I'm concerted.  They cover the scene in a way that no newspaper or magazine does - more creative, better written, more in-depth, more interesting -  and I would miss them both as a reader and as an author were they not to exist.

Nathalie:

I don't recall ever reading an intelligent article about blogging. The narrative requirements of trend pieces seem to preclude a number of obvious questions; for ex., does any blog, no matter what its content, run counter to the mainstream? In my opinion, blogs have been a boon to newspapers like the NY Times; 
blogs are constantly linking to mainstream media, and even criticism of mainstream articles is, in some sense, a re-assertion of their primacy.

Lizzie:

That it is something that requires SO MUCH ATTENTION. It's not nuclear fission, people. Maybe if we had invented a flying car, or a robot vacuum that actually worked.

Kassia:

Everything. I think they're missing the potential impact. Mainstream media can't offer the same care and attention to books that bloggers can. Not only do bloggers not have layers of editorial oversight or financial
considerations (such as advertising revenues), but they have what is essentially unlimited space. They can write long reviews or critiques; they can conduct detailed interviews; and, possibly most importantly, they 
can use their community interaction in ways mainstream media can't. Print might generate a few letters to the editor, radio might get an hour's worth of calls, but a blog can build in different ways.

While I haven't looked, I'm assuming major litbloggers, especially those who do reviews, use the Amazon and Barnes & Noble sites to build their readership. Readers tend to identify with reviewers and build a trust
relationship -- this trust allows bloggers to make more recommendations, especially when it comes to books flying under the mainstream media's radar, to a growing audience of readers. Since these readers are worldwide, blogs also have the ability to build a wider, more diverse audience than newspapers.

Wow, I think I can go on about this forever. RSS is a key element separating litblogs from mainstream media. Sure, you're seeing more use of RSS with newspapers, etc, but as they propagate subscription forms (hate 'em!) and archive older content, these feeds don't provide an effective way of accessing reviews and interviews. As RSS becomes more integrated with browsers and portals like My Yahoo!, bloggers will build their audiences.  Also, blogs are almost universally built to be search engine-friendly. Never
underestimate the power of Google.

Successful blogs tend to rely on unique voices or views. Much like picking up the latest book by a favorite author, you return regularly to certain blogs because the author speaks to you. Part of this is the "character" 
the blogger has adopted (I can't say where my approach came from -- it just felt right as I was posting), part of this is the blogger's political bent (I don't mean this in a Democrat/Republican sort of way). The voice builds a bond with the reader.

Finally, the clique-ish nature of the litblog community is a huge benefit to growing a readership. You don't really see the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times referring readers back and forth -- but you see bloggers doing this all the time. If I stumble across, for example, Maud Newton's blog and she's referencing Tingle Alley who's pointing me toward Bookdwarf who piques my interest with something at The Literary Saloon and so on, I'm not only getting what I'm looking for (information about an author, book, agent,
editor, other), but I'm also discovering like-minded sites. In a way, this is like the early days of the web with link exchanges, but a bit more grown up.

Megan:

They certainly overlooked my influential and widely-read publication in their coverage.

Sam:

I think the assumption that bloggers all aspire to be professional writers or critics is wrong.  I think a
lot of bloggers are just contented amateurs like me, who will do this thing as long as it remains
interesting, and then move on to something else.  

Lauren:

That's a very provocative question! I hesitate to be too cruel towards journalists, because they have been very kind to us thus far. However, I think that the media generally view blogging as either a fad or a mortal threat - neither of which is an accurate characterization, and that they fail to pick up on the real story behind blogs: their low barrier to entry, potential mass audience, and easily accessible diversity of opinion will radically transform the way we conduct cultural conversations in our society in the next ten years and beyond. And it will be all for the better. Literary blogs create new audiences for fresh voices and perspectives, and pose a (very) necessary challenge to the status quo. I'd love to see more of the dynamic energy and forceful, impassioned critiques found on blogs make their way into certain print publications. It would certainly liven things up a bit, wouldn't it?

EWN:

Again, I thank you all greatly, both for your time here, and the hours of enjoyment I've received
wandering across your websites - they are all well worth the time of anybody reading this.  Feel free to
add any final comment about blogs, your site, or any of the others participating here (or any of those bloggers who participated in the first panel)!

Michael:

I would just like to suggest that readers venture to other literary weblogs (beyond the biggest and most familiar) as well: the "blogrolls" at (some of) your favorite sites (or, for example, our extensive listing at
http://www.complete-review.com/links/bloglink.htm) lead to an impressive variety of weblogs, many of which are worth a look.

Nathalie:

Thanks for putting this together, Dan! I'm looking forward to reading other bloggers' answers.

Lizzie:

Thank YOU! I think your project is great.

Kassia:

Thank you for inviting me to participate -- I really enjoyed the first set of interviews. Even when you read a person's site every day, you still don't know them. I liked learning more about the personalities behind the 
blogs.  When I mentioned the litblogging community, I should have noted that the warm welcome to the neighborhood I received from many of the bloggers on this and the first panel was inspiring and greatly appreciated. I'm excited to be part of a group I read regularly -- I hope this ends up like the camp where you really do keep in touch after summer ends.

Megan:

Oh, now I need something clever to say. Thanks for including me in this.

Sam:

One specific comment about blogs, and then a general one about lit: 

I wish the blogging medium was friendlier to hedgehogs like me. (Isaiah Berlin: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.")  I'm really interested in only five or six themes, and it's hard to stick to those themes without being repetitive.  So I don't aspire to do what Lit Saloon or Maud or Mark or Ron or Nathalie or Jessa do, but I do follow Dan Green, Stephen Mitchelmore, and Derik Badman in terms of exploring a smaller set of topics and authors while at the same time doing consistently interesting stuff.

High-horse time:  To me, literature doesn't live in books.  It lives in the community of people who read
them, think about them, and talk about them.  The conversation that occurs around literary works -- a
living conversation that began centuries ago and includes, in its most public forms, both Samuel
Johnson and the guy who reviewed Robinson's Gilead in the New York Times last week -- is in the end what distinguishes these works from the average chunky paperback you read to make a flight seem shorter. 
Participating in that conversation -- even in this tiny, evanescent way -- delights the hell out of me.

Lauren:

It's an honor to be included in this discussion. Thank you.

Elizabeth:

Dan you are an absolute inspiration. Thank you for all your fine work.