I mentioned VQR’s insult critique of its slushpile in a recent post. Which was followed by a post filled with compliments on the slushpile. Only to be followed by a redaction and their apology. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing–their “slushpile diss” wasn’t great but I think their redaction is worse. The back and forth to me (read: indecision?) belies a lack of conviction about how they really do feel about their slushpile. And the apology a bit unconvincing–what could have been a great and honest communication has now been withdrawn and closed (as neatly as possible) with an apology.
Back to the world of being polite.
But aha! Howard Junker offered his words on the subject, and that’s opened a new dialogue! He calls the VQR dialogue as “pious, pompous, cliched ranting.” (SMACK!) The gloves are off! It’s ON!
The VQR then responded with posts entitled Howard Junker has your back and further thoughts on Junker.
The editors are being honest with each other in a way that editors can’t be honest with writers (my guess). And the argument has turned a bit personal.
Editor wars: a spectator sport?
