PicoBlog

Hi Andrea,

Sorry to have missed your comments, and not to have responded 'til now. I only became aware of your comments on 12/26/22 and needed some time to not just consider your questions, but how to respond with some degree of brevity. With all but the last question I managed to be brief, whereby I apologize in advance for the length of my final answer. Your questions were so good, I had to spend some added time flushing out my thoughts.

Anyway, here are my responses to topics you addressed and questions you asked . . .

1)Hobart’s Structure:

Some specifics regarding its structure were offered by the departing editors. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQaXxY2Ice6hefLh0e_ph8BCzMPtXuEBYceULnSxICU3uQ_sxh_GSCrLjNVJaqxegOFFI4-Zk4jF6Fa/pub

And, the EIC did explain the history of her role, in what is part book review/part autobiography. See: https://www.hobartpulp.com/web_features/year-of-the-buffalo-by-aaron-burch-a-review

Beyond offering those resources, I’ll just add I think you’re right. We generally have no way of knowing about the structure and internal dynamics of journals and presses, at least prior to some “drama” and “discourse” occurring, wherein they are made public.

2)Journals that "Rehome":

I'll say this. It used to be a more general practice that if a piece was reprinted, then the first publisher would be credited. That in mind, I’ve not researched whether journals that “rehome” withdrawn work are crediting the first publishers of the pieces they republish. It’s an interesting question, though, and maybe worthy of follow-up. For I would hazard to guess whether or not they end up crediting the first publisher varies from publication to publication, not to mention how, if they do.

3)Archival Rights Conflicting with Republication:

I'm doubtful added Archival Rights would present much of any obstacle to writers having their work appear in anthologies and/or collections. Most journals seek either One Time, First Serial, First Electonic . . . namely, they seek credit for being the first publisher, if not some limited right to republish in the case of First Serial. In such cases, adding Archival Rights shouldn't present any serious hurdles, but for *maybe* a publisher being concerned that such archived work would somehow cut into sales. Which seems to me far-fetched. One would have to have rather sizable cache of work included in a collection that's also archived online to warrant such a concern. And, many presses limit the percentage of previously published work included in a collection anyway, Archival Rights or not.

4)Miscellaneous Questions:

You wrote:

"I've read Hobart has recruited another top editor, so it may be that the journal moves on and this incident fades away with time. But what if the editorial direction changes? What if there are more bombastic interviews? Of course, changes in editorial direction and missteps can happen with any journal at any time. And if a piece was included in a print issue, of course you can't change that. But if the journal and editor can remove my work (if I behave badly or in a way they don't approve), should I not be able to do the same?"

I’ll only note here that to my knowledge, the EIC remains, and new staff have been hired, with the next issue of Hobart slated for early 2023.

Beyond that, for now I’ll just address your last question which reads: “[ . . .] if the journal and editor can remove my work (if I behave badly or in a way they don't approve), should I not be able to do the same?”

As a general principal I'd say sure! But, with some qualification. If a journal doesn’t assure writers their work will remain on site for the life of the site, then yes, as a general principal I would guardedly suggest writers should be able to *at least* request their work be removed. Guardedly, since even if a journal doesn’t publicly offer the aforementioned assurance, I’d still be reticent to simply assume they are willing to deplatform writers. And, if they’re against doing so, then I’d find little hypocrisy in them not honoring a voluntary request for removal, most especially if made against a backdrop of a “call out,” “dogpile,” and/or smear campaign. Though, I’d certainly urge them to be more explicit about where they stand going forward and consider how including Archival Rights in their guidelines would help make that stand clearer.

5)Your final question(s):

You wrote, “For the writer who has published work on Hobart's archive right now, what do you suggest? Wait and see?”

That question seems clearly related to others you asked in the preceding paragraph, which I quoted above, but didn’t answer. Most prominently, “But what if the editorial direction changes? What if there are more bombastic interviews?”

My answer is an unequivocal I don’t know exactly. For, what are their choices? Assume those things will happen and pre-emptively make a voluntary request for removal? Or, if they wait and see, only make their requests if and when it’s clear the editorial direction changes in a manner they personally dislike? Or, do nothing at all?

Sorry, but I've no one size fits all prescription here. I suspect writers' responses will likely be conditioned by how offended they feel, should Hobart take a different editorial direction in the future. Also, such responses will likely be conditioned by people's own underlying assumptions, along with how their peers might react. Those who assume that journals *should* adopt expansive Human Resource Department like roles, and that peers *should* inform on peers for real or perceived misdeeds via call-outs, dogpiles, deplatforming campaigns, etc. are but one subcommunity within the larger indie lit scene. Their reactions will necessarily be different from those who are more critical of such assumptions and the collective online practices ostensibly performed in the name of "accountability."

I’m more closely but not exclusively aligned with the latter camp. I generally look more askance at events that involve bad actions and institutions than I do events involving bad opinions and individuals. This is why I treated Hobart as a springboard in my article, rather than as a case study unto itself. I sought to explore related trends and past events, so Hobart might be considered within a larger context, rather than in a fashion where the individual actors and their opinions are inevitably brought to the forefront. There were already articles written in that vein, and another (from me, at least) seemed unnecessary, not to mention less important than trying to contextualize the event.

That in mind, any advice I’d have to offer would involve considering the larger indie lit ecosystem of which Hobart is but a part. Here, I guess I'd suggest writers consider questioning the utility of participating in an ecosystem that has more gatekeepers than gates. Reason being, that's the very ecosystem that made the events surrounding Hobart possible. It's one where the number of people with direct access to any given delete button is exceeded by those who lack direct access, but who nonetheless are prone to catch a nasty case of what is known as Itchy Finger Syndrome (IFS). *Most importantly,* it’s this same ecosystem that has produced other online events where reputations and psyches were unduly damaged by false and/or overblown claims. All such events—Hobart and otherwise—were borne out of assumptions about how journals *should* be adopting Human Resources roles, along with the "call-outs," "dogpiles, and deplatforming campaigns that accompany those assumptions.

Given all this, I'd ultimately suggest every writer would do well to contend with what it means to be a "literary citizen" operating within an ecosystem that has grown increasingly reminiscent of Omelas. And, with that, consider practicing social media distancing from those who all too regularly succumb to the ravages of IFS. Quarantine them if necessary, via the block button on Twitter. For the toxic nature of IFS is such that regular sufferers often exhibit condescending, snarky attitudes which afford them very pleasant feelings of moral superiority over others, most especially when another writer’s work is deplatformed. Conversely, those who've never previously suffered its effects report feeling as if their soul was run over by a large-scale, id driven tornado, leading them to do things like delete their social media accounts out of fear and humiliation. Finally, as it’s believed to be highly infectious, I’d again suggest inoculating online journals and their contributors against IFS via the adoption of Archival Rights. For, it's like Kryptonite when faced with an outbreak. And, it has the added benefit of helping publishers avoid suffering their own unique symptoms which includes an undo feeling of being pressured by others to make a hasty decision, not to mention the nausea that accompanies thoughts of not taking the easy way out via simply pressing the delete button.

All that noted, thanks for your thoughtful questions. I enjoyed discussing them, and only regret not having seen them sooner. And, for going on so long in at least *trying* to answer your final question. There's just so much to unpack.

Johnny

Expand full comment

ncG1vNJzZmikmam6orPNnq6sZqOqr7TAwJyiZ5ufonyxe8Kopa2dqKnCorjIs6Cnn12dvKOt0a1kqa2cpXyku8ymnKesow%3D%3D