Now I don’t mean to go off on some tear here, but I notice that there is some genuine confusion about this question and it comes up a lot. Every “community” seems to wrestle with certain questions, and every community gets to a point where they must defend against the inevitable accusations on cliques, transparency, bias, self promotion. There will always be somebody out there, it seems, who feels put out in some kind of way by a community or hasn’t gotten the response or attention or comments or welcome they wanted. What happens when people walk away from a community, dissatisfied? People will, that’s the way it is. Can’t please everyone, particularly when part of the burden is on the individual to make their own way in a given group.
Sometimes the frustration is justified. Sometimes it is just a matter of disconnect between what people expect and their subsequent experience. Sometimes, honestly, it can be “good riddance” because the person did not seem to give a shit about anyone else anyway. Just saying.
I have been back from hiatus for a few weeks now and I have already gotten questions about who edits what. Where do I submit my fiction? My poetry? I wish people would ask ‘Where do they need help?”.
Damned if I know, I know what I do and that is to talk about independent press and extoll the merits wherever I can. I know this isn’t a journal, although there is a zine and featured work. I have no idea, and before you think that sounds wacked- realize something that we have all had to grapple with. The hierarchy editor-authority style you are used to does not always apply here. Outsider Writers is not a literary magazine, with an official “masthead” of names and tasks. Outsider Writers is not a publication, with an “upcoming issue #45″. It isn’t Macy’s window and there is no shelf space to fight about. Who the hell knows where the cool kids sit, and whose fault that is.
What it is and struggles to remain is a community. What that means will depend on who you ask, and that is truly the strength of a community- a group of people with different backgrounds, styles, goals, concepts, projects, priorities. We might feel more comfortable in places where everyone is on the same page, where everyone is pigeon holed into a role, where things are spelled out. That is great for clarity and that can help people who are not accustomed to the group’s culture to navigate the community’s terrain.
But what that also does is create layers of authority, domains of responsibility that can quickly become fixed and inflexible. If you think about the point of a community, you can see why that progression would be undesirable. This is something I really learned from Pat King after badgering him when I first came.
“What do I do here?”
“What should you do here?”
What, Pat won’t babysit me all day? What a jerk.
The concept of community has been discussed a lot here, and in the forums. I’m no voice of reason, nor do I claim to know the inner workings. That said, I hear grumblings that are not necessarily fair.I don’t speak for anyone here, nor do I want to. I speak for me, and what I observe.
“OW is a clique.” Well it is human nature to form into groups around things, and the dreaded “c” word is tossed around by people who have come away with a sense that they can’t break into a group. But have they tried? When there are calls for contributors, calls for help, discussions about getting involved- are they commenting, giving input, offering to help out? Are they pitching their ideas? Or do they pop in just long enough to link a book and leave? Is that an issue with a clique, or is it an expectation that people drop things and serve you? That is not community.
If a person comes to a community with the idea that their interests should be served, their work promoted, that the community should just give- it’s no wonder there would be some disconnect. Community works when people give and take.If you join a community but feel that you are not given some red carpet, ask yourself what you do for others. Do YOU read poetry and comment? Do you give what you hope to get?
“OW is sexist!” Ok. I was reluctant to touch that one, but yesterday I was asked about the “wienie roast.” And here is the thing: As a woman, I feel that I should call people on that but I also feel that I should be proactive about making my voice be heard.
If that’s true, part of me wants to jump into the middle of a perceived “manfest” and cause ruckus! I mean, if you think there is bias, why is the answer to walk away and let them win? Why not articulate your concerns, for the sake of other women, open your mouth about what you see? Many guys have no idea that something is being perceived that way, and would not intentionally go along with it. In my experience, the best way to confront a gender issue is to confront it, head on. Make your case.
I don’t see it these days, and I am always looking for it, that is what I do. I have seen “sexist” things as I see them in most places, but I do not think it is a “feature” of the community. I don’t think it is fair to tack that onto a diverse group with hundreds of people. Plus, there needs to be examples and an effort in some way to talk about it.
“I don’t get comments.” Fair enough. But do you give them? How many networks have that same poem? I mean, what do you want? If a person misses a few days online all kinds of things slip by. Things scroll away, it would be a full time job to read everything posted by a member. And remember, we are already trying to find time to write our own stuff.
A “community of writers” has to be more than a place to park promotional blurbs.It has to be more than a place to seek validation and kudos.
But what should it be? What does that mean to you, to your work?
What is the difference between community building and networking?
If we become about promotion and marketing, what makes indie press so different?
From my own experience of starting and running a collection of writers from ’01 to’07–
–Can’t please everybody? Most times I couldn’t please ANYBODY. Whatever I did, it wasn’t good enough. Unprecedented accomplishments– publicity that underground writers hadn’t seen in four decades? Not good enough. That may be the nature of volunteer organizations or it may be the nature of writers.
–It’s a truism that for most such groups, a few people do 99% of the work. The rest are free riders.
As for OW itself– what exactly is it? How does it define itself? Simply as a community? What does that mean? Does OW have goals? How does it distinguish itself from the hundreds of other such online communities which are part of today’s literary scene??
Marketing and promotion are dirty words for many people– but they’re concepts which must be understood by anyone who has writing that he or she wants people to read. Readers don’t find you. You have to make noise.
In this increasingly noisy society, the difficulty of finding readers increases, no matter what part of the literary pyramid you occupy.
Finding an audience is the task of literature as an art, as a cultural entity– a task at which literature, compared to sports, movies, popular music– is failing.
Just my two cents.
Really nice post, Lynn. Though I may have inadvertently overlooked some of the criticisms of OWC that you mention, I can definitely see how these types of criticisms could snowball into real problems if not addressed directly. Hopefully, if anyone has real problems with what OWC does they will do one of two things: 1) speak up; let us know, or 2) find a community more in tune with how they like to perceive themselves. With so many communities out there, I think it is important to explore.
@Karl – Thanks for the comment. Regarding your specific questions (I don’t know if these were meant to be rhetorical, but I figured I say what I can about them):
As for OW itself– what exactly is it? A group of people with shared literary interests. We put passion above profits, as is the overall way we define “outsider.”
How does it define itself? Simply as a community? What does that mean? We define ourselves, I think, by the type of material we post, and the types of people behind the material. Like all communities, we are a produce of shared interests. We don’t hover around a specific ideal (we aren’t all Bukowski or Harry Potter lovers, for example).
Does OW have goals?
How does it distinguish itself from the hundreds of other such online communities which are part of today’s literary scene?? Again, it’s the people who post, read, write, and enjoy OWC that makes us different. We don’t have a specific quality, that I know of, that we hover around. We share interests, and hopefully, the community grows by beckoning to people who have similar interest.
A distinction that makes me interested in OW over many other groups is that there is an effort to reach out to people who truly KNOW the meaning of outsider, or being “marginalized”. Now I don’t mean just people who feel apart. I mean people who are historically kept apart: inmates at prisons, the psychiatrically and physically disabled, the homeless, the poor, LGBT, and so on.
Many people don’t realize that David Blaine, for example, worked on recording prisoner poetry or that Pat King connected our work with the political and anarchist zine networks that resulted in fascinating pieces from activists like Anthony Rayson and Lee Savage. I still correspond with them today and many others- as a direct result of this group’s efforts to reach out and be more than “just a writers group”.
As for the criticism, the sexism thing likely comes from the fact that there are simply more men vs. women that post regularly on this site. The answer might be to let females know that there is a commitment to diversity and all writers are welcome. I noticed that there are some new faces recently, nothing here is static.
Re: marketing and making noise, I don’t think “promotion” is a dirty word, even non profits hire marketing firms, it is a growing field that I have been lucky enough to study and research in my work world.
It isn’t just about product in this case, it is about a commitment. There are some small press publishers who go that extra mile and people know it, they present poetry and literature in a way that is author centered and also invites the reader to interact across media- audio, podcast, readings, events, exhibits, fairs.
A publisher MUST have a reputation in small press I think, and it helps if that rep shows that it isn’t about vanity.
Thanks for this post, Lynn. I’m really tired right now, so I want to reply more in-depth to this tomorrow.
I have to say, though, that the sexism thing caught me a bit off guard, just because I honestly haven’t heard it before. I’m not doubting that you have, of course. There was a point, I believe, where nearly half of the contributors were women. But people come and go and it just happened that a bunch of women seemed to leave at once. I hate that even one person thinks that the gender gap is intentional. It’s definitely not a conscious thing, but, as you know, much sexism is subliminal anyway. I’ve always realized this and tried to counteract it by consciously seeking out a more diverse wreckin’ crew while at the same time trying not to be condescending or faux affirmative action about the thing. That’s actually one of the reasons I liked having you here before, taking on a leadership role. It took some of the pressure off having a man make some of these kinds of decisions anyway, because any group with all men (and I use the term loosely when referring to myself!) in leadership roles is could easily be seen as paternalistic in regards to ANY decision they make regarding diversity.
OK, I think that’s all for now. More tomorrow.
Great post, Lynn. And great call out on the noisemakers, or the “black holes” as I like to call them. They’re the cats who want more than they give, and when they don’t get it, they rant and rave and sling mud. And you know what? Shake it on down the line, friend-o. Laters.
OWC is probably the most user friendly and approachable lit community out there. At least that I’ve seen. There’s not a drop of pretension in this place, nor is there an ounce of smarm. No Smarm, No Pretention. That should be a slogan somewhere. New writers or writers who are new to the online lit world often come stomping into places and demand the best table in the house. And why not? They are new. They are awesome. We should kiss their feet. And in a way, this is forgivable. Because they ARE new. Because they don’t know any better. Because they haven’t taken a good look around.
But if they have even a glimmer of patience, they WILL take a look around. They’ll also think about checking their ego at the door. And maybe then, THEN, they’ll consider putting on an apron to help in the kitchen or out on the floor. “Community” isn’t a clique of site contributors kissing the asses of anyone who walks through the door.
….Older, more experienced writers should know better. And if they don’t, there’s a good chance they’re in the same exact spot they started. And maybe they’re okay with that.
But everyone is nuts. Myself included. We’ll all be fine.
Great post, Lynn.
The whole thing frightens me. You say something good about someone’s writing and they are your friend, but you don’t know them really. I think online communities are not for everyone, maybe communities in general, and whether they suit you or not is worth learning early on.
As far as comments are concerned: how many people really have the necessary erudition to make them? Someone might comment something good, or helpful, then you feel you must return the favour, as if you are chalking it up on a board. Then again they might not like your comment…and remember, only last week you agreed you were ‘friends’.
To me it seems dangerous for a community to be promotional (of certain authors and trends). On the one hand they are peers, on the other you are a potential customer. I believe it is an area large corporations are trying to take advantage of for advertising.
I’m glad Lynn brought this all up. First of all, a single online community will never be able to serve everyone. Even though we call ourselves Outsider Writers, that doesn’t mean we can feature or support all outsider writers. We also can’t have a hundred and fifty different editors. Too many cooks and all that.
Where to send your poetry, your stories? Visit a search engine and look for “call for submissions” or “call for manuscripts” and see what comes up. Or visit Duotrope Digest. I can only speak for myself, but I am not looking for submissions. I do not have time to read submissions. I read what I want, and I review what I like and feature the authors I love.
I started a now defunct social networking page for OW and Lynn took it to a better level with the present Ning site. She also has The Sphere on Ning. This is where you can post your own stuff.
If you are wondering what those kinds of sites are meant for, it’s simple. They are closed communities for members only and if you workshop your poems and stories there, they are not really “published” so you can submit them to editors as un-published. You can ask questions among like minded writers without having someone from work find you on Google. Everything past the front page requires a log in.
Now I’m going to get downright nasty. If you are whining because you can’t get your writing published, grow up. Submit, wait, get the damned rejection letters, submit again. That’s how everyone, and I mean everyone, starts out. If no one ever accepts anything you write, no matter where you send it, no matter how long you keep trying. Well, perhaps you should try painting, or playing the guitar, or cooking or something else. There are so many online zines popping up every day that anyone who writes well should be able to find an outlet eventually.
Oh yeah, and as far as Karl’s question as to how we define ourselves:
I think you could say, very broadly, that we’re a group that takes writing and literature seriously while not taking ourselves seriously. We’ll dig on the serious poetry and prose, book reviews. But at the same time we’re not above fart and/or dick jokes. And I like that.
That’s a great description, PAT!
What is a “Community?”
Well, the classic definition is: “A social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.”
Well, that doesn’t seem to fit. How to define “Community?” Maybe we can try to define “community” in terms of this article and the follow-up comments.
To start, we’ll look at a list of comments defining what it is not:
“this isn’t a journal, although there is a zine and featured work…”
“Outsider Writers is not a literary magazine…”
“Outsider Writers is not a publication, with an upcoming issue #45…”
“It isn’t Macy’s window and there is no shelf space to fight about…”
“isn’t a clique of site contributors kissing the asses of anyone who walks through the door…”
“more than a place to park promotional blurbs…”
Some comments defining what it is:
“a group of people with different backgrounds, styles, goals, concepts, projects, priorities…”
“a group of people with shared literary interests…”
“We define ourselves, I think, by the type of material we post, and the types of people behind the material…”
“A distinction that makes me interested in OW over many other groups is that there is an effort to reach out to people who truly KNOW the meaning of outsider, or being marginalized…”
“There’s not a drop of pretension is this place, nor is there an ounce of *smarm (perhaps due to a lack of erudition, I have no idea what this word means). No Smarm. No Pretention. That should be a slogan somewhere.
“I can only speak for myself, but I’m not looking for submissions. I do not have time to read submissions. I read what I want, and I review what I like and feature the writers I love…”
And then there’s this:
“I think you could say, very broadly, that we’re a group that takes writing and literature seriously while not taking ourselves seriously…”
Followed by a comment from the lady who started this discussion:
“That’s a great description, PAT!”
I believe these last two comments sum it all up.
In this discussion, the word “group” comes up more often than “community” or “collective.” Perhaps, it more clearly defines what OWC is all about—if a definition is necessary.
One definition of GROUP:
A number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship.
First, I am aware of the fact that you have had some negative feedback in comments as I do read them- just don’t always respond.
If you can help me understand this last one, that would be great, because it sounds like your complaint is a linguistic-semantics argument about the definitions of group and community. Do I have that right?
I do not recall seeing your offers to participate in a number of activities that I would call “community” developing versus “group”.
So we are clear, let me tell you what I mean there. Maybe we can find something that appeals to your community spirit. Do any of these interest you?
You clearly are interested in taking us to task. Why not pick something or better yet- tell us about your community building project?
These are some examples of things I call “community” driven. Maybe you can make the case that they are not. Can you direct your criticism though at specifics?
*When we had the prison outreach to assist with a non profit, many “community” members offered to help out and followed through. I bet we could use your energy.
*When we had the community chapbook swap last year to help members learn more about one another’s poetry, the response was fabulous, it led to collaborative work, readings, new friends. I am going to read with one of those people in a few months. Would that interest you? It happens we have this year’s going on right now!
*Reading and community events are considered by many of us here to be vital to keeping poetry vibrant, relevant, participatory, and evolving. A number of us have organized readings, forums, been present at small press fairs, meet ups. Would you like to get together and get out there, make things happen? Read, share your guest room, show up and support community? We have events and readings. Why not come?
*We have a zine, that costs money to produce, and time. I bet we could use some “community” there.
How about if we start there, and if none of those sound like community I can toss out five more, and we can keep working on down the line.
Oh yes, since the definition above was cited from “ask.com” it might be helpful to mention that the quote above defining community cuts off half of the entry.
In particular, the gentleman includes geography and other features but neglects the part of the definition (as per both dictionary.com and ask.com) that goes on to describe community ALSO as:
*a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (usually prec. by the): the business community; the community of scholars.
*Ecclesiastical. a group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule.
*Ecology. an assemblage of interacting populations occupying a given area.
*joint possession, enjoyment, liability, etc.: community of property.
**similar character; agreement; identity: community of interests.
**the community, the public; society: the needs of the community.
Using the full definition, OW does have a unifying purpose which is stated in the mission and I have given examples that connect purpose with specific tasks. (ie outreach to under-represented writers)
OW does have common resources and liabilities: this website, for starters, which is not free. Financial liability for that, the press, the events, the costs of representing all at small press functions which is not free but serves to raise the profile of the community ostensibly for mutual benefit.
OW does have some shared traits, character, and interests as above, but in the pursuit of plurality and diversity seeks to emphasize the position that diversity of membership is to be considered a strength and homogenization is not looked upon as important.
I believe the last section sums up what I was trying to say, and has nothing to do with taking anybody to task.
And then there’s this:
“I think you could say, very broadly, that we’re a group that takes writing and literature seriously while not taking ourselves seriously…”
Followed by a comment from the lady who started this discussion:
“That’s a great description, PAT!”
I believe these last two comments sum it all up.
I thought I was agreeing with your last comment. I’m sorry you didn’t see it that way.
As for the word “group” it was used over and over again by many people who commented.
Screw the semantics. Call it what you like. Community/Collective. I just like the the definition given in Pat’s comment–especially the part about “not taking ourselves too seriously”
That’s all.
oh, by the way, I’ve played concerts in prisons for free. And I did spend some time in the U.S. Marines in a little place in southeast Asia–40 or so years ago for a community called the USA.
For what it’s worth.
one more thing–then I promise I won’t muddy the waters here again.
as for contributions to the OWC community, I did contribute five short stories over the last year or so.
good luck
My point is that I was hoping you would get involved then, be part of the things you’d like to see going on.
I think that is the best way to change anything, from the inside.
I know who you are, respect who you are, and I am sincere about all this. Really.
This is how people do things, talk it out.
Lynn, and DB Cox? I think the two of you are on the same side and perhaps don’t realize it.
Just for shits & grins, I Googled “Literary Journal” and Google reports it has about seventeen million five hundred thousand entries that fit the description.
If someone likes it here, great. If not, seems like there are seventeen million four hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine options for them. Eh?
lynn,
thanx for wading in a advancing the dialogue. part of being in the community is gaining the perspective of others to help shape your own. as someone who is relatively new to the indy scene, i see quite a bit of support with advice, cross promotion, fair critique and lots of outlets for creative contribution. OWC is and will be whatever the members make of it. you know i’m available to help in any way i can.
David- yes, I think there is some commonality, I also should have stuck to the comments in this discussion and not others because this is what is in front of us.
And Michael- I think the offer to help is exactly what makes this a community”. Help has to be part of it.
I can’t speak for the others here, nor would they let me or want me to.
BUT that said, there are some things that I think anyone interested can jump into right now that might be a fun way to get one’s feet wet.
Shameless Plug: One is the Chap Swap, because it is not really about getting chaps at all- it is about connecting one on one with other writers, sending a tangible thing, being able to ask for production or other assistance which we can offer, be part of the group chap of work from all participants…
You could connect something you are doing, like a reading series, and look into a collaborative event. Why not? Many people here would be interested in developing an event or meet up. You don’t have to sell your first born, just float the idea and see what happens.
[...] Good article at Outsider Writers on the purposes and personal needs and uses of communities founded around a common interest: What is A Writing Community, Anyway? [...]