When I arrive at Broadsided Press’s homepage, the first feature that catches my eye is a digital image of a recent broadside called “Timid as Any Herd Animal.” Visitors have the option to either click on a link that takes them to a full “Contributors Q&A,” which provides them with a window into the creators’ interpretations of the broadside before, during, and after it was put together (I particularly love the questions, Did anything shift for you or come into new light once you saw the poem and art together on the page? and If this broadside were a type of weather, what would it be?), or they can simply admire the PDF image of the broadside and bask in the enjoyment of deriving their own meaning from what they see before them. As someone who occasionally finds my interpretation of a given piece of writing colored by the “Editor’s Note” or “Author’s Introduction” in a book, I appreciate this flexible website feature that gives people the opportunity to either enjoy the broadside for themselves or get to know the creators through their specific intentions and creative processes. A combination of these two experiences is also possible, wherein a visitor can take in the broadside and then evaluate it through the creators’ interpretations. Broadsided Press has used the digital world excellently by presenting visitors with a couple of different choices for exploring the content.
One question that has arisen as I have explored various literary magazine websites is how literary magazines can use digital elements not as replacements for their print media, but as additions to it (this does not include online-only literary magazines, which have their own merits). In the round table discussion “The Future is a Literary Magazine,” several panelists explain that there should not be a rigid divide between the “print” and “digital” aspects of a magazine—rather, both of these mediums should complement each other, and online content should reflect an appreciation for the pieces and authors published in a given print issue in new and innovative ways. This discussion certainly raised the question of which online content builds upon the “materiality” of literary magazines and which online content overpowers this materiality. I wonder why Broadsided Press has opted to display their broadsides as PDFs on the homepage and in the archives; how does the easy online access to these broadsides build on the Press’s mission of “putting literature and art on the streets” if the “streets” are absent? Are the PDFs intended to give the broadsides the same openness and accessibility that they take on when they are placed on a street corner? Does the PDF format detract from the magic of encountering a physical broadside in its natural habitat? I could see it going both ways.
As for the “Submissions” page, I am thrilled to see that Broadsided’s submission requirements are minimal—they focus on form, not content, meaning that the main criteria is whether or not the work could fit on a broadside. There are no strict specifications on subject matter; just “We want them to draw in readers, not push them away.” Literary magazines always face the challenge of determining how specific they want to get in their submission guidelines. On the one hand, less specificity invites a greater variety of work and a sense of openness rather than exclusivity, but on the other hand, specifying desired content can be a great way for potential submitters to understand the “spirit” of the magazine (and its editors!) better. Given that it is focused on putting up broadsides, not putting together a traditional print magazine, it is fitting that Broadsided Press is so open and nonspecific in its submission guidelines. On a different note, Shenandoah Literary Magazine gets very specific about the types of content its editors seek in each category (for example, “Lesley reads for power, surprise, intelligence, big-heartedness, craftiness, mystery, and risky strangeness”). I get the impression that the editors of Shenandoah want potential submitters to get to know them through the types of pieces they are looking for because Shenandoah focuses on curating a set of excellent writing pieces from various genres for each issue; Broadsided Press, however, keeps its profiles on the editorial staff separate because submissions are re-worked into broadside form after authors submit them. Broadsided Press wants pieces with the potential to be something eye-catching and captivating, not pieces that are designed to fit into a particular category or niche.
“As someone who occasionally finds my interpretation of a given piece of writing colored by the “Editor’s Note” or “Author’s Introduction” in a book, I appreciate this flexible website feature that gives people the opportunity to either enjoy the broadside for themselves or get to know the creators through their specific intentions and creative processes. ” — keep this in mind, editorially. How do you offer an editorial hand… but not in a way that’s to prescriptive? How can you open conversations but still allow a reader/viewer to follow their own path? This is an important consideration. And, I think, one that is not often enough considered.
“I wonder why Broadsided Press has opted to display their broadsides as PDFs on the homepage and in the archives; how does the easy online access to these broadsides build on the Press’s mission of “putting literature and art on the streets”” — great question. And the answer is through YOU. You print and post. You put it where it needs to go. We enable grassroots activism. We practice it and show that via the Instagram.