Reading the shape-shifting text: the context and impact of the diverse strategies of the McSweeney's periodical, with particular attention to its status as a new approach to literature, as represented both by commentators and its creators. By Kevin O’Neill Student number. 33101753 Goldsmiths College PhD English and Comparative Literature 1 Declaration. I hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Kevin O’Neill 2 Abstract. This thesis interrogates the cultural impact and literary significance of the McSweeney’s periodical. It argues for a particular approach to the study of the periodical form that focuses on the unusual textuality that results from a serially produced text; one of its objectives is to understand the implications of making a representation of a periodical as a whole text. The complications that result from representing a serial text composed of multiple individually authored texts are taken as productive for this thesis, as it attempts to uncover what this process reveals about how periodicals differ from the traditional objects of literary criticism. This thesis considers the McSweeney’s periodical from several perspectives at different points in its publication history, moving from its founding statements to its anthologies, and looks at it through various lenses, including an analysis of its form/style and a consideration of its politics. The intention of this thesis is to identify and describe the particular strategies of the periodical and locate them in their appropriate context. 3 Table of contents. Reading the shape-shifting text: the context and impact of p.1 the diverse strategies of the McSweeney's periodical, with particular attention to its status as a new approach to literature, as represented both by commentators and its creators. Abstract p.3 Acknowledgements p.6 Abbreviations used p.7 Introduction: What is McSweeney’s? A shape-shifting text p.8 Chapter 1: Developing a methodology for reading McSweeney’s p.20 The New Yorker p.23 New historicism p.30 On literary culture p.34 Materiality p.34 Paratexts p.35 Literary production p.37 Representations in literary culture p.38 Chapter 2: Establishing a non-dichotomous literary culture p.45 Case study 1: “Are you taking steps to keep shit real?” p.53 Case study 2: Rick vs Richard p.59 Case study 3: “I seek a direct personal relationship with art” p.68 Case study 4: Looking for a Garde of which to be Avant p.74 Chapter 3: Performing the idea of McSweeney’s p.86 Performed identities p.89 Anthologies p.97 The Treasury/Issue 10 p.108 4 Chapter 4: The abstracted McSweeney’s; an attempt at a faithful reading p.119 The form of McSweeney’s p.122 The style of McSweeney’s p.136 Chapter 5: The politics of McSweeney’s p.151 Conclusion p.173 Bibliography p.175 5 Acknowledgements. For his understanding and patience during a long period of study, sincere thanks to my supervisor Professor Josh Cohen. Fellow students that provided much-needed advice and encouragement at various stages: early on, Leif Bull and Eva Aldea; midway, Jessica Rapson, Lucy Bond and Helen Palmer; late, Catherine Humble. For clear words, thanks to Jack Underwood. I could not have finished this project without the support of my family and friends, which I strive to remember to be grateful for. 6 Abbreviations used. Best of – The Best of McSweeney’s Better – The Better of McSweeney’s Tendency – Timothy McSweeney’s Internet Tendency Times – New York Times Treasury – McSweeney’s Mammoth Treasury of Thrilling Tales USoM -- The United States of McSweeney’s 7 Introduction. What is McSweeney’s? A shape-shifting text. What is McSweeney’s? This is a question with several possible answers, and these touch on issues that are central to this thesis. McSweeney’s is primarily a periodical with an unusual physical format containing short fiction by contemporary writers. Over fifteen years, it has published a diverse range of emerging and established writers, and contributed to a resurgence in the short story form and the standing of the literary periodical. This description belies the complexity of the identity of McSweeney’s, as the combination of a shape-shifting physical form and a porfolio of content involving hundreds of writers has spawned conflicting representations of its activities. It is variously discussed as a successful, mainstream periodical that advances the careers of its writers, or as a site of quirky and unusual literary experiments. These and other contradictions emerge because of the dense and multiple nature of the serial periodical format; these problems are amplified by the injection of shape-shifting and flux into this format by McSweeney’s. The aim of this thesis is to understand the strategies and context of McSweeney’s and produce a satisfactory description of the periodical’s identity, given the challenges I observe from its interactions with literary culture. McSweeney’s was founded in 1998 by the American writer Dave Eggers. Initially established as a literary quarterly, it has since expanded into various side-projects including a non-fiction magazine (the Believer), a DVD periodical (Wholphin), a daily-updated humour website (Timothy McSweeney’s Internet Tendency), a book publishing arm (McSweeney’s Rectangulars), a non-profit literacy foundation (826 National), a childrens’ book imprint (McMullens), a sports magazine (Grantland), and a food magazine (Lucky Peach). All of these are to a greater or lesser extent a part of McSweeney’s, falling under its publishing umbrella. In fifteen years, the McSweeney’s periodical has published forty-four issues of short fiction and other literary content. Each issue adopts a different physical form: Issue 4 is a series of pamphlets enclosed in a cardboard box, while Issue 17 is designed to look like a bundle of mail, and Issue 33 is a fully executed version of a Sunday newspaper. Given this shape-shifting behaviour (of both the overall project and the periodical itself), it becomes impossible to be certain that a speaker’s understanding of the McSweeney’s periodical is accurately communicated to their addressee. While this is true of all communication, the periodical offers more of a challenge than most other texts. This difficulty in conceiving a stable linguistic representation of either the various projects associated under the umbrella of ‘McSweeney’s’, or of the periodical itself, seems to touch 8 on some of the reasons why it has become such an important part of early 21st century American literary culture. McSweeney’s is a shape-shifting text. As a publishing enterprise it has several incarnations. As a periodical, it has multiple issues, none of which share the same format. This thesis will explore the different positions that the McSweeney’s periodical occupies and is taken to occupy in 21st century literary culture. The dual focus here is intentional: my interest is in both how McSweeney’s represents its own activities and how these activities are interpreted and received in literary culture.1 Originally pitched as a small press response to established magazines, it is now considered as one of the most important literary publications in America, as suggested by the diversity of side-publications it has created. It follows an offbeat agenda and has an unusual editorial voice that allow it to be represented as unconventional. Its ambiguous status as not-mainstream and not-small press invites consideration of McSweeney’s as a text which does not occupy a stable cultural position. Its formal shape-shifting is reflected in this unstable position. The shape-shifting form of McSweeney’s identifies something unusual in their activities. The periodical is primarily unusual when considered in comparison with other journals and magazines, because its form runs contrary to the dominant paradigm of periodical production, i.e. engendering familiarity and loyalty in a readership through consistent and regular form.2 As the first of several paradoxes, it may be this ‘rebellious’ strategy that contributes to the popularity of McSweeney’s. I describe this as a paradox because we assume that readers continue to read periodicals because they are confident they know what it will contain. The periodical medium is founded on this assumption—that readers are more likely to purchase subsequent issues if they are reasonably certain what they purchase will meet their expectations. The shape-shifting form of McSweeney’s appears to reject this periodical paradigm. The only predictable aspect of the McSweeney’s form is that it has no predictable form. This bleeds into the representations made of its identity, as I will discuss below. The various activities it has engaged in during the spectrum of its publication has made it a productive focus for thoughts about the literary marketplace. Various representations can be made of McSweeney’s: its diversity allows multiple perspectives of its cultural position to be constructed. It can be a small-press, independent journal, or a powerful, established !"#"$%&&"'()*%+,"-."+,/%0%1%)0")/"12,"3)03,'1"4&%1,(5(."36&16(,7"8,&)$9" :";)(<1"=)<,(>"!"#$%&'$()&#*'+&,-$./012++3$+4$5&+4#,,)+0/6$7/8/9)0#$(#,)80:$;6/,,)*$!#*"0)<=#,$/01$>0,?)&/')+0/6$%??&+/*"#,>"?)0+)0@" A25-,<"B";6+<)0"C:DDEF>"'9GH9" 9 publishing presence. An Observer article has called McSweeney’s ‘the natural home for the leading fiction writers of [its] generation’.3 The New Statesman has tellingly labelled it ‘the place publishers look for new talent’.4 A blog by the Hesperus Press labels McSweeney’s as ‘indie lit’.5 An article discussing the launch of the Believer magazine describes McSweeney’s as having a ‘DIY credo’.6 Which position it is taken to represent depends on certain factors—what elements of the McSweeney’s project a speaker refers to, and the speaker’s interpretive community.