Originally posted April 12, 2007

A few weeks ago, I sent FM to a site that selectively lists and reviews various sorts of indie publications (which I won’t name, since I’m about to say nasty things about it, and it is on the whole a good resource). Now, had the editors declined to link to FM because they thought it sucked, I would have disagreed, but at least understood. However, the reason they gave for turning it down was because FM isn’t formatted like a traditional print journal (despite the fact that this was for a section of Web journals).

As I see it, content should be adapted differently to suit different media. For example, when adapting a book to film, narration might take on a different but equally effective expression through an actor’s body language (one good example is Roger Michell’s adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Persuasion”). Likewise, the logic behind FM’s format (which I went into in more detail in a January post) is rooted in the medium.

The publishing industry is still largely geared toward print. Though certainly more people are realizing the potential of online publishing, resistance to Web-adapted formats seems to me much like the early film industry’s tendency to format movies as if they were stage plays.

While the Web isn’t exactly new, there’s still plenty of room to experiment with its possibilities, especially in the literary realm. Some journals, for example, use the medium to blend music, poetry and art – a feat beyond the capabilities of the average piece of paper. I say experiment away – the gatekeepers of industry tradition will catch up eventually.

– Sari

April 12, 2009 | | Tags: ,

COMMENTS

 

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply