A Good Journal...With Editors Asleep at the Wheel?

Dear StoryQuarterly,
You don’t know me, but I have heard many wonderful things about you. I’ve heard, for instance, that you are a prestigious literary magazine published by Rutgers University. Also, I’ve heard how difficult it can be to get published by you, and thus what an honor it would be to receive an acceptance from your fine editors. And I’ve seen this year’s issue, which is simple and sleek, nothing but a shiny black cover adorned with the lovely SQ logo.
Because of all these good qualities, StoryQuarterly, I really wanted to like you.
But, well, how can I put this…With your latest issue (#44) something has gone wrong. I mean, disastrously wrong.
I was shocked that among your staff—one Executive Editor, three Senior Editors, one Managing Editor, and nine Editorial Editors ( a staff larger than those of many lit mags)—not one of you caught the mind-boggling amount of typos that appear in this issue.
StoryQuarterly, I’m not talking about a few misplaced modifiers or a split infinitive here and there. I am a forgiving reader, and would certainly overlook your average comma splice, a “then” when a “than” is needed.
What I cannot comprehend, however, are typos so egregious that they’re downright ridiculous. Here are but a few:
* The frequent use of the number 1 in place of the letter “I” (four times in one story!)
* Sentences without periods (five times in one story).
* Wrong/misspelled words. As in: “I want you to give me your keys because you can’t have she car.” As in: “With that she yanked the door open arid slid inside.” As in: “The vinyl was coal against the backs of her thighs.” As in: “…Air freshener that hung front the rear view mirror.”
All of these errors appear within one single story—Denise Gess’s “Trespasses.” Ironically, this issue opens to a tribute to the late Ms. Gess, two essays citing her grace as a storyteller and the power of her carefully chosen words. It's too bad that the editors did not apply the same level of care to their work as Ms. Gess evidently applied to hers.
I might forgive these sorts of blunders if they only existed in that first story. Hey, we all make mistakes.
But sadly, StoryQuarterly, the list of errors goes on. Adam Peterson’s “The Cowboy” features the line “This his how things are with sons.” Matthew Goldberg’s “Perfect Practice Makes Perfect” misspells the word cubicle (“cubical.”) Frank Tavares’s story “The Neighbors” uses present tense where past is due: “Newt mumbled after they’d settle into their seats.” Kendra Langford Shaw’s “The Walrus and the Tub” uses quotes where apostrophes should be: “the cat”s ears”; “don”t”; “it”s”; and double apostrophes for dialogue: ““Cut to the source.””
The thing is, StoryQuarterly, once I got past these cringe-inducing errors, I found myself enjoying much of the stories here. Of those mentioned above, Kendra Langford Shaw’s “The Walrus” was a special delight. I relished in its playfulness—the strange tale of a community-shared bathtub and the school principal who wished to hoard it. I didn’t know what to make of his eventual (d)evolution into a walrus, but I enjoyed the mystery.
Similarly, Adam Peterson’s “The Cowboy” was an inventive short short about a young man’s relationship to his father, and to his own masculinity, traced through the path of a single pair of cowboy boots. And while I was taken aback by Ralph Tavares’s portrayal of Chelsea, the adulterer/prostitute/sex-fiend who lives next door to the protagonist in “The Neighbors,” I appreciated the fun adventure of this story, a quick-paced and action-packed drama that held me riveted.


Comments
#1 Thanks for this review,
Thanks for this review, Becky! You're right - the rampant typos irked me as well. I'm especially pleased to hear you enjoyed "The Walrus and the Tub" - I had a blast writing it.
All the best,
Kendra
#2 Kendra, Your story read like
Kendra,
Your story read like you enjoyed writing it! Nice work.
-Becky
#3 Bex, the typos suggest that
Bex, the typos suggest that the text was scanned from a hard copy, hence, "and" becomes "arid," etc. Not an excuse. Best, Matt
#4 Good point, Matt. Thanks for
Good point, Matt. Thanks for offering an architect's perspective!...But you're right--no excuse!
#5 SQ
Very interesting and thorough review of this volume of SQ. It does seem worth reading...I'm especially interested in the walrus in the bathtub. But I do hope you hear back from the editors. 14 of them missed all this stuff? I'm pretty tolerant of typos, but this is too much even for me!
#6 Thanks for your comment,
Thanks for your comment, Leslie. You're right--the work is great. Such a shame to see it presented in this way.
Post new comment