Here is something I have noticed about reprinting material that was previously published but not available to us online—it ain’t for everyone. Why? Well, say I reprint a story that was published 40 years ago. Some folks will be turned off immediately: Why are you digging up some relic? Who cares? How about a new story? Others, of course, want to dive right in. I’ve found there is no use trying to convince people who aren’t interested. I’m all about serving those of you who get something out of it.
Recently, an editor asked me to “dust off” an old piece, and that phrase speaks volumes. Even the word “archive” suggests something ancient. I get it, but it never occurs to me to look at resurrecting old pieces like that. I see them as new. I see them as jewels, gifts. Maybe we are just talking semantics here but while, yes, this is an archive, it is a living, breathing archive.
I like to think of The Stacks Reader as a gallery or museum for stories. I’m the gallery owner, interested in giving these pieces a loving home—framing them in a clean and simple way that lets the work speak for itself. And again, the animating idea here is not nostalgia but preservation. So many magazines and books are disappearing from our world and need saving. You bet we get our fingers dusty digging through the stacks—we’re happy to do the dirty work—but they are anything but stogy relics.
Let’s call ’em like we see ’em: Treasure!