In the past year or so we have seen an increasing number of magazines establish or announce plans to initiate on-line editions of their publications, a step that we have no interest in taking at this time. Such electronic communications appear to be ideal for coping with large gatherings of data that are constantly changing, but that has nothing to with the mission of The Georgia Review, and we certainly do not hold with those who argue that we must adapt in such a manner if The Review is to survive. Indeed, at a time when most of us already suffer from an overload undigested information (even as more random data continue to bombard us), it's hard to see how the future of literary quarterlies depends upon their ability to transmit facts more rapidly-as if in some desperate attempt to keep pace with "the big guys." The greater cultural greater cultural need, in our opinion, is for more journals that can offer intellectually authoritative selections of information already sorted and synthesized, placed in a meaningful perspective, made relevant to a new understanding, and written in ways that are aware of (and sometimes even revel in) the evocative power and beauty of language beyond its data-transmitting capabilities.
We believe, of course, that this need is addressed by much of the exceptionally fine work regularly featured in The Georgia Review, which is why-even if we turn out to be forever electronically challenged-we remain genuinely optimistic about this journal's next fifty years. We suspect that serious readers seldom if ever find truly distinguished writing by surfing the Internet, nor a likely to find in cyberspace the kind of in-depth analysis, poetic insights, or aesthetic rewards that the readers of The Georgia Review have come to expect in every issue. (The Georgia Review Vol.L, Number 4 pp.647-8)
Return to Introduction