I have in my hands Issue Two of The Means, a new literary magazine. Purple Post-It® notes flap out from certain pages, but I'll get to the journal's choice bits in a minute. First let us reflect on the meaning of The Means.
The Internet has drastically changed our relationship to knowledge and information, but for literature we still turn to books. I suspect that having a solid object to hold and read from is integral to the way we want to ingest long works. Though millions of us happily read newspapers on the Web, looking at a computer screen is not a comfortable way to read for a long period, nor is it conducive to the state of absorption that we usually want from a book.
The continuing popularity of printed magazines, for their part, can be largely attributed to convenience. In a waiting room, or taking the train to work, people want to flip through short, easily digested articles in something that's disposable.
Whither, then, the literary journal? Can a printed book-magazine hybrid maintain readership in the digital age? Old brands and habits die hard, and I wouldn't expect venerable titles like The Paris Review and Poetry to vanish any time soon. The Council of Literary Magazines and Presses lists hundreds of members. Still, it might well be seen as folly to be starting a litmag in the age of Google and Wikipedia. So when a new journal publishes its Issue Two, one can't help being a wee bit impressed.
Co-editor Tanner Higgin declares that while The Means is "labeled a literary journal, our editorial direction has no allegiance to mere fiction and poetry. Rather, we read everything sent to us and choose what's good. It truly is as simple as that... interviews, lists, essays, humor, art, comics, and anything else that can be slapped on to a piece of paper are fair game." Alas, he goes on to abuse the language he has implied he loves: "The truth is that most [literary] publications are running on a shoestring budget with no readership and thus function as poorly compensated, careless behemoths with little to no interest in costly innovation or the acceptance of risky writing by unproven writers."

.jpg?t=20120209092158)





Article comments
1 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
Nice article--glad you could highlight what seems a worthy endeavor.
2 - Tanner
We appreciate the review Jon.
One note, it is Christopher Monks and not Marks.
But I guess that's what not having an editor for the editor gets you!
3 - Natalie Bennett
This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States. Nice work!
4 - Gbanabom Hallowell
Good!!!!