Search News


Browse Archives

News

On the Chopping Block

May 14, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

With some university presses facing budget cuts that could effectively kill their operations, maybe it shouldn't be a surprise. But experts on literary magazines are nonetheless surprised -- and worried -- by the announcement this week out of Middlebury College that it will cease sponsorship of The New England Review by 2011 if the publication doesn't become self-supporting.

The problem, according to the editor of the Review and experts on literary magazines, is that they don't have business models that work, and so must rely on philanthropic support (which is hard to get going now) or the sponsorship of a college (as is the case for many of the top literary magazines). In recent years, no college forced a literary magazine to fend for itself -- a move that would effectively kill most such publications. In 2003, Washington and Lee University floated the idea of ending or sharply cutting support for Shenandoah; the university pulled back from its plan amid strong criticism from the literary world.

That the latest plan to end support for a magazine would involve a college that is wealthier than many others that support literary magazines, and involves a publication that is considered to be among the best of its kind, has those who care about the magazines worried.

"They have achieved grand dame status. They have published so many people who have gone on to have household status. This would be a terrible shame," said Jeffrey Lependorf, executive director of the Council of Literary Magazines and Presses.

By many non-financial measures, the Review is a success. When The Boston Globe ran an article last year on literary magazines, it said that "this is one of the journals most often mentioned by writers and readers -- including editors of other journals, as among the nation's best. As Elizabeth Searle says, the Review is a 'high-class lit magazine that also happens to be secretly sexy.' What's not to love about that?" Like similar magazines, it publishes poetry, fiction and literary nonfiction. In February, the magazine held a reading to celebrate its 30th anniversary and the contemporary writers who participated were among those who cite the Review as launching and influencing careers -- people like Shannon Cain, Brock Clarke, Jennifer Grotz, Keith Lee Morris, Carl Phillips and Natasha Trethewey -- writers who are not household names but are well respected in literary circles.

While the Review balances its (subsidized) budget, it is extremely dependent on the college. Middlebury pays for most production costs, provides office space, and pays the salaries of the professors and others who work there. Stephen Donadio, the editor and an English professor, declined to say how much money the magazine receives from the college, but said that it paid for most of the expenses and that he didn't see how other revenue streams (subscriptions, for example) could ever support the magazine sufficiently to operate without college financial support.

"We're an incubator for literature," said Donadio. And he added that the Review, along with the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference, which is affiliated with the college, have given Middlebury enhanced stature in the literary world. And he noted that the Review has the college's students as interns, and that editors teach at the college. What the magazine doesn't have is a huge subscriber base. Donadio said that the figure is under 2,000. That's not low for literary magazines, but it also doesn't lend itself to a self-sustaining business model.

R.T. Smith, editor of Shenandoah, said that it was unfair to apply a purely financial standard to evaluating literary magazines. In much the same way that university presses support scholarship (and are subsidized by research universities), literary magazines support literature and publish the work of professors all the time.

"A really important equation to consider here is that universities expect their faculty to publish in magazines like The New England Review and Shenandoah. For a college to say that we are shutting ours down, while hoping our faculty keep publishing in everyone else's is a bit of waffling on one's sense of community," Smith said. "If you are teaching writing, you need literary magazines."

Middlebury is by no means singling out the Review. The college has been through several rounds of budget cuts, largely prompted by drops in endowment earnings and the endowment value, and the uncertainty over the economy. In the latest round, the college was accepting recommendations of a panel on which students and faculty had representatives. In fact, the college amended the recommendations to give the Review until 2011 to become self-supporting. And the latest round includes a series of other cuts, in many aspects of the college: with spending reductions affecting the president's house, the buildings and grounds, arts programs and meal plans, among other items.

A Middlebury spokeswoman said that there was no intent to go after the magazine, just a campuswide process to identify all kinds of ways to allocate funds where they are most needed. She also said that the college was willing to help the magazine become self-supporting.

In other cases, institutions making cutbacks have spared literary magazines. For example, when Antioch University shut down Antioch College, the university's board went out of its way to say that the cuts would not affect The Antioch Review, which continues to publish.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on On the Chopping Block

  • I'd rather save the College....
  • Posted by Xavier McDaniel , graduate student, Physics on May 14, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • I hope you were being ironic in contrasting Antioch's decision to "save" its literary magazine as it watched its College go out of business with Middlebury's decision to actually try to reduce subsidies across its operations and challenge the New England Review to even cover its printing costs. As good a literary magazine might be, I would guess that Middlebury's alumni and its current students, faculty, and staff would agree that preserving the excellence of its liberal arts program for its students is paramount. How can one justiify not pushing the magazine to cover costs when the alternative is cut into the institution's core mission (academic programs)? In these times, maybe entities like this magazine need to find ways to support themselves like all the faculty in our physics department support themselves (and their graduate students) with external funding. How hard has this magazine been pushed to get external support?

    To question this kind of decision by Middlebury is to support the stereotype that the academy lives in a sound proof ivory tower, unaware of current financial realities.

  • Lack of broader context
  • Posted by Jason Mittell , Assoc. Professor of Film & Media Culture at Middlebury College on May 14, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • I was disappointed in this article for two reasons. First, as Xavier's comment suggests, there's little acknowledgment that publishing a literary journal, while valuable and admirable, is not the core mission of a liberal arts college. In a time where every institution is facing crisis economics, priorities have to be laid out transparently - I think all of us in the Middlebury community have faced up to that reality for the most part, and I wish this article had reflected that more fully.

    More importantly, there is no acknowledgment of the broader crisis - and opportunity - in academic publishing. In an era where the written word circulates more broadly and freely than ever before, a niche journal with fewer than 2,000 subscribers is going to struggle to survive. Why didn't the author discuss the shift toward online publishing and the possibilities of a literary journal reinventing itself for the digital age? Or consider how all university presses are questioning their publishing models and making major cutbacks? To isolate one literary journal and a small college's budget decisions makes it sound as if this is a unique case, when it is really one small example of a much larger transformation.

  • Core Mission
  • Posted by Ted Genoways , Editor of the Virginia Quarterly Review on May 14, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Everyone, the previous commenters included, always discusses the "core mission" of a university as if it obvious—to continue to support the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the institution. And yet, Jason Mittell seems to me on very thin ice when he suggests that a literary journal is "not the core mission of a liberal arts college." I would suggest, instead, that each institution needs to evaluate its own identity, what makes it unique, and support that identity deeply. Middlebury College is primarily known as a haven for language and literature. It is home to the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference, the School of English, the New England Review, the Environmental Journalism program. All of these entities support the outstanding undergraduate program in creative writing and its English faculty—including Julia Alvarez, David Haward Bain, Robert Cohen, Kathryn Kramer, Jay Parini, Don Mitchell, and Christopher Shaw. Only from deep inside the academy would a professor of "media culture" (read: television—"cop shows and cartoons") cite "priorities" as a rational for Middlebury College cutting one of the finest literary journals of the last generation. Is the program in Cinema & Media Studies self sustaining at Middlebury? Of course not. So setting priorities should be a matter of deciding what any individual institution can do better than other institutions. Middlebury's Media Studies program seems little match for UC Berkeley, MIT, or the New School, but New England Review stacks up admirably against the very best university literary journals, such as Georgia Review, Kenyon Review, and Southern Review. In times of crisis, doesn't it make sense to start by ensuring the future of what you do best?

  • On the other hand,
  • Posted by Raoul Ohio on May 14, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Ted,

    Absolutely good points. But, on the other (extreme view) hand, everyone has pet projects that they would like a college to support. Where does the money come from? How many is enough? Where do you draw the line? There are no easy answers.

  • Pet Projects
  • Posted by Ted Genoways , Editor of the Virginia Quarterly Review on May 14, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • True enough, Raoul. My point is that universities and colleges have to decide how they define their core missions. Is the goal breadth of education or depth? I would argue that institutions stand a better chance of longterm survival by focusing on what makes them unique and investing deeply in those areas. A few years ago the University of Iowa considered dropping its book arts program. After all, who handmakes book anymore, right? Except that Iowa's book arts program was ranked #1 in the nation, and the university had other historical strengths in creative writing and international writing and emerging strengths in book history and media studies. In that light, offering students a hands-on education in the making of books to go with their book history courses or inform their understanding of the origins of new media methods and terminology, doesn't seem like a pet project. It is an enriching element of a core strength of the university, it provides a firm foundation for emerging areas, and it helps the institution distinguish itself from competing programs.

    I believe that every university would benefit from revisiting its mission, assessing its strengths, and funding accordingly. Too many institutions, in my opinion, assess their weaknesses and expend untold resources trying to plug gaps in a futile attempt to do everything. So I'm not suggesting that literary journals are a critical part of the work of higher education and so each and every college and university should have one. What I'm saying is that New England Review at Middlebury College—and Southern Review at LSU (also under the gun)—build on and enrich the fundamental identities of their universities. Those institutions would be diminished by their loss.

  • Another good example
  • Posted by Lori Dugdale , Marketing Director at Antioch University Seattle on May 14, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Antioch University Seattle also supports KNOCK, a literary arts magazine published twice each year by B.A. students http://www.knockmagazine.com/ Students select the theme, content, layout and strategies for distribution, making for a rich learning experience that translates directly to career choices. Invaluable.

  • Posted by George on May 14, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Regarding Ted G's post . . . . the idea that a literary journal like the NER adds luster to Middlebury and helps build the campus culture for literary work is right on. However, the idea the NER is somehow parallel to an academic dept--like Media Studies--is problematic. After all, students take courses and directly benefit from the Media Studies dept. NER's benefit to students is much more indirect and, I would say, nowhere near as central to the mission of Middlebury (and that of other liberal arts colleges) as the curriculum.

     

  • self-supporting is a good idea
  • Posted by Alan Cordle, Foetry.com , Faculty Reference Librarian at Portland Community College on May 14, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • I don't know the particulars about the NER, but I just took a glance at the most recent budget figures for the Virginia Quarterly Review. If I am reading them correctly, the Commonwealth of Virginia (taxpayers) paid more than a quarter of a million this year, and another nearly $300,000 comes from unrestricted funds. The total is an astounding $540,000 this year -- for a quarterly journal! See http://www.virginia.edu/budget/Docs/2008-2009%20Budget%20Summary%20All%20Divisions.pdf (scroll to page 90) Is the NER spending that much? Perhaps Mr. Genoways, who posted earlier, can tell us the circulation of the VQR (I'm guessing a couple thousand individuals and libraries, max), but I would suppose that it costs several hundred dollars to produce a single copy of an issue, which sells for about $8. That seems like an extraordinary misuse of public funding. Literary journals don't sell well, and aren't read by many. Editors should push for more subscribers and supplement with grant money. Better yet, there are now many quality online journals. Perhaps NER, VQR, and other journals should start looking more closely at that model. And writers who need to publish for tenure can submit to thousands of self-supporting journals, which publish in either or both formats.

  • missing the point
  • Posted by Xavier , Ph.D. candidate, Physics at OSU on May 14, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Mr Genoways misses the point. Of course cutting anything today in an academic institution will draw the line "...will be diminished by such a loss." Anyone can fill in the blank.

    It is odd to read such a strong defense of a literary magazine that loses significant $$ at a time when layoffs are happening at so many schools, when faculty hirings are frozen at others, and when programs are being emasculated with reduced funding. We are talking about a liberal arts college, which is supposedly focused on undergraduate education, and a magazine with fewer than 500 paying subscriptions (not 2000 as postulated --- NER's own claim). Surely the "institution" will be diminished by its elimination, but how, and relative to what? Such magazines are not directly related to the undergradute experience -- not like classes, co-curriculars, plus many other things that are at risk now, and would be even more so if subsidies were to continue to programs or entities unrelated to the student experience.

    The issue should not be framed by the question of whether losing something like the NER would be a loss. We can say "yes, what a shame." It should be framed by what is the opportunity cost of keeping such a magazine, and it is clearly great given Middlebury's mission.

    And yes, why not produce this magazine on line? If a Middlebury College could not cut this luxury item from its budget, one has to wonder how colleges and universities will wake up to the new economic realities that are here to stay.

  • Missing the Point
  • Posted by Ted Genoways , Editor of the Virginia Quarterly Review at University of Virginia on May 14, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Xavier, I think you're missing my point. What I'm suggesting is that: 1) universities should build on their strengths not scramble to cover their weaknesses, and 2) using sustainability as a yardstick is lunacy at any university.

    Let's take an example from the world of physics—the esteemed Journal of Applied Physics. One could argue that they exist without university support, thus proving their value in the marketplace. In reality, though, their editor is a professor at the University of Chicago, which contributes to the publication by paying his salary, and their editorial board is more than half composed of professors at other American universities. They also produce an occasional publications series, edited by two university professors. Printing and distribution is covered by the American Institute of Physics (which publishes a host of physics journals and magazines) at an annual subscription rate of $205. Not surprisingly, almost all of the journal's subscribers are institutions—including nearly 1000 universities. So universities pay in $200,000 in real cash for printing and roughly an equal amount in work release for professors to edit the journal. That sounds like significant university subsidy to me.

    By comparison, VQR distributed (as of our last public filing) 4500 copies to paid subscribers, 1500 to newsstands, and retained 2000 copies for individual copy sales—which are usually sold out within two years. Our subscription rate is $32 per year, and it's $14 for a single copy on the newsstand. So we contribute about $50,000 to our operation per issue—or $200,000 per year, roughly the same as the Journal of Applied Physics. The difference is that 85% of that subscription contribution comes from individuals, not other institutions. So, in fact, a journal like ours is more self-sustaining and less of a burden on ballooning higher education costs.

    Alan Cordle, no doubt, will wonder why our expenses are so much higher then. The significant difference in operational costs for us is that we pay our contributors reasonably well—about $.20 per word for prose, $5 per line of poetry, $150 for a photograph. (It's not uncommon for a contributor of a longish essay with photographs to receive $2500.) Many of our contributors are full professors, but the vast majority are associated with universities as either adjunct professors or graduate students. While many universities celebrate their core academic mission, they are often paying their workhorse instructors, who are doing the bulk of that sacred instruction, a few thousand dollars per semester. By paying our contributors better, we help sustain those writers and artists and allow them to continue to live lives within the academy, even if their home institutions are not providing them with such basics as health care. What are academic journals doing to support the adjunct professors and graduate students now crucial to the operation of American universities?

    My point is that profitability should be a non-issue. Non-profits exist because we, as a society, value some things for which there is not a mass market. Furthermore, the whole idea of a university, in which disparate disciplines are brought together, is that interaction and sharing of resources provides for the common good—often in ways that are not immediately discernible. That's why I would disagree with anyone, including Alan Cordle himself (who posits, after all, that "self-supporting is a good idea") should they argue that Portland Community College should not rely on the State of Oregon for 42% of its revenue. I would disagree with anyone (and their numbers are growing) who would argue that university libraries should be shuttered because they are money pits. Why, they might ask, should we fund a library in a city that is home to Portland State, the University of Oregon in Portland, the University of Portland, Concordia University, and Concordia University?

    The answer is simple: because universities need libraries—just like they need journals and presses to fill them.

  • Question of institutional model
  • Posted by Jason Mittell , Professor of Film & Media Culture at Middlebury College on May 14, 2009 at 6:30pm EDT
  • Ted - normally I would not engage with a stranger who initiates a conversation by insulting my scholarship, department, and discipline without any relevancy to the topic at hand. However, I think it's important that people reading this thread recognize what most of us at Middlebury see as our "core mission" versus other institutions. We are primarily focused on undergraduate education, and thus our resources are focused in that direction. We run other programs with the intention that they be self-sustaining, rather than pulling resources away from our core mission. We are facing many campus-wide cutbacks that are trying adhere to that philosophy, with the NER decision as just one.

    I would love to see someone put forward a model for NER to continue in a way that does not draw away resources from undergraduate education. Personally, I think that will be hard to imagine at a small college with no university press and no conventional graduate programs. A large institution with a press and sustained graduate students to work on a journal has more flexibility and economies of scale.

  • Xavier's got his numbers wrong
  • Posted by Christopher Ross on May 14, 2009 at 6:30pm EDT
  • Hi, Xavier. Don't know where you got your subscription numbers, but they're wrong.

    For everyone else, here is the link to the NER subscription page:

    http://cat.middlebury.edu/~nereview/orderner.html

  • What do we need?
  • Posted by Jack on May 14, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT
  • Ted,

    Two things:

    1. It's not clear how much longer we're going to need libraries in their current form and for their current purpose. Academic journals are money losers and it won't be long before they're all on-line only and we won't need to go to the library at all to get a copy of any article.

    2. Why list only your journal's revenue and not the expenses? LIkewise for JAP? And subscribing to a journal is hardly the same as subsidizing it.

  • A view from Canada
  • Posted by John on May 15, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • A friend in Seattle sent me the link to this story and I have scanned the comments with interest. I am the editor of The Malahat Review (a respected Canadian literary quarterly at the University of Victoria), albeit on leave, so I have yet to establish how the changed fiscal environment for the university will affect the magazine. Support from federal and provincial governments is also now under threat. Dozens of small literary magazines nationwide are in a similar position. Most of us are much smaller than any of our American peers, but should we fail or be seriously compromised in our operations, the impact on the Canadian literary community will be long term.

    My observation is that it is easy for university administrators to cut support for literary magazines because for them this largely involves one budget line. It doesn't involve any sophisticated strategic thinking about the present or the future. They are not likely thinking about core values but about the immediate bottom line. We should expect more of them. We should expect more support from our academic peers who teach in the areas we publish.

    It seems to me that the argument should framed around cultural importance not viability. In this country, if viability were the sole criterion, there would be little opportunity for true culture. There would be no Yann Martel (the Malahat was the first to publish him), no Margaret Atwood, no Michael Ondaatje, all of whom benefited from publishing in Canadian literary magazines long before their careers were well enough established not to need any support from any kind whatsoever. We helped them lay the cornerstones of their reputations. 

    It also seems to me that literary magazines become part of the core mandate only when it is convenient. Our betters are quite happy to bask in our reputations when it serves them well. We should remind them how much we enhance the university's reputation. They want to be seen as players in the larger world of ideas, a world that is much bigger than the university itself; in literature, these magazines help them realize this goal. 

    And no one should forget that should these magazines fail, staff members will lose their jobs. The people who run them, at least in this country, don't live on air. 

  • It's OK if there's one less
  • Posted by Will Smith on May 15, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • The US has hundreds (thousands?) of subsidized literary magazines, both print and on-line, with millions of tuition and tax dollars going to support them. "Creative Writing" as a function of the academy won't suffer if the New England Review doesn't survive. And with fewer than 2,000 subscribers out of a nation of 300,000,000 readers at large won't even notice. Literary magazines can be quite expensive. Schools might support a magazine with a "big-name" editor who barely teaches (100,000K plus), office, equipment, interns, GTAs, postage, printing costs, design $$$$. These same schools might pay an adjunct $2000 to $3000 to teach a section of English 101. Years ago the hottest magazine was the Evergreen, full of adverts and independent of any academy. But hustling for subscriptions and selling advertisements is hard work and beneath the dignity of literature these days.

  • on-line? not a savings
  • Posted by Will Smith on May 15, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Going on line is not much of a savings, actually, unless you're farming out the production and design and getting ripped off. But most quarterlies are text on a page--anybody can do it to print-ready PDF. The cost for printing 2000 copies of a 144 page journal would be under $4K--two dollars a copy. This is easily recouped by the subscriptions. What's expensive are the Professor's salaries, the secretaries, the GTAs, the travel to the AWP, the pansies in the buttonholes. etc. And none of that will be saved by going on line. But costs should be put in perspective, especially to those outside literature crying about this expense. Start-up for one new faculty member in the sciences might be $500,000. The prestige or cultural capital that Virginia gets for the same amount of dough to the VQR makes it a bargain. But VQR is an exception--a genuinely interesting read that has gotten a lot of national attention and helped make the UVa MFA program one of the most highly ranked in the country. Most of the on-line journals aren't worth the (free) time, and I suspect most of the hits (counted as readers) are mostly writers looking for the how-to-submit page.

  • Outsider Perspective
  • Posted by Joseph Geskey , Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Penn State University on May 18, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • As an academic physician who starts most of his days with Poetry Daily, I was intrigued by this discussion. I agree with Mr. Genoways about examing the mission of an institution before making such a decision to eliminate the subsidy of an esteemed literary periodical. In academic institution, many medical centers are subsidized by procedural based specialities such as cardiology, neurology, orthopedics while others such as pediatrics and internal medicine are loss leaders. Surely no one suggests that these programs should be "moth balled" because they are not economically self-sustaining. Likewise, many college athletic programs would cease to exist because major football college programs and, to a lesser extent, men's college basketball programs subsidize the cost of smaller men's and women's college programs. The point about institutional subscriptions is extremely valid as well, where in my discpline as well, some institutional subscribers may be charged several thousand dollars per year. I would consider this to be a form of subsidy even though the publication may be "self-sustaining". As someone who believes that literature, and in particular, poetry, has had an important impact on how I approach and relate to patients in a holistic manner, I would be the worse professionally for the absence of literary journals of the quality that the above respondents have mentioned. If the journal plays a role in the local, regional or national dialogue, I would be disappointed if administrators excluded that part of the equation in determining whether or not to support a program or publication.

  • From a different perspective.......
  • Posted by Elizabeth on May 21, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • Jack:

    1. It's not clear how much longer we're going to need libraries in their current form and for their current purpose. Academic journals are money losers and it won't be long before they're all on-line only and we won't need to go to the library at all to get a copy of any article.
    While you're partially right, you're also quite off the mark. Digitization is a long and expensive process; it's not just scanning PDFs. It also takes a dedicated team who may be working on it full-time. This is assuming that digitization is allowed-copyright isn't always easy to navigate.

    You're correct that many journals have online content, especially recent content. However, not all content is online, and when it is online it is not always available. A full backstock is not always available, so if a volume or issue cannot be found it cannot be digitized and be put online. Also, publishers might sell different subscription packages. A regular institutional subscription might give you, say, access back a decade, but any articles older than that and you'd need to buy another package. More than once I've gone to find an article through my school-I'm an MLS student-and found that the issue I need isn't digitized or available through my school's subscription. Given that the school is an hour away from me, hopping down to the library isn't terribly easy.

    While online access is a wonderful thing, it is not the be-all and end-all. There are logistics and costs involved that don't seem very obvious, but are definitely there and can be a bit of an obstacle. Please reconsider such blanket statements unless you have all the facts.

  • Electronic Publishing and the Bottom Line
  • Posted by Irving , Editor & Publisher at CHOICE on May 21, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • There is one thread running through several of the preceding comments that reflects a very commonly held but incorrect belief about electronic publishing. In this view, more progressive scholarly publishers could solve all their problems by going electronic. Unfortunately, going electronic not only isn't the solution, it's the problem. If it weren't, we would be looking at a very different set of headlines regarding the newspaper industry, to name one prominent example. Much has been written about this. Suffice it to say here simply this. Yes, getting rid of print saves some money, specifically paper, printing, binding, warehousing, and postage/handling. It also gets rid of all those print revenues. And guess which is the larger number? Could it be the revenues? Why, yes. And why is that the case? Could it be because no rational publisher prices their print products to lose money and so set the price higher than their expenses? Right again. Bottom line. Getting rid of print lowers expenses, but it lowers revenues by a larger amount. And guess what, electronic publishing isn't free either. It has expenses. In some instances, those expense are actually higher than print, and for any serious, sustained, publishing effort in a rapidly changing technological environment, they are always significant. So, whatever the merits or demerits of any particular publication may be, a question I will leave others to grapple with, of one thing you may be sure. Switching from print to electronic almost never solves the financial part of the problem.