Comment on 3:AM

I have resigned as co-editor-in-chief of 3:AM and ended my association with the magazine.

This was not an easy decision; 3:AM has been very, very good to me. I have worked with talented and passionate writers and publishers from around the world – some I now have the privilege of calling friends. I have interviewed authors I have long admired. Also, a number of publishing opportunities have come my way as a direct result of connections I have made through the magazine. My time at 3:AM has taught me much and was also a lot of fun.

3:AM is a passion project for everyone involved – no money changes hands in any direction. The masthead is filled with people who want to promote the discussion of a certain brand of literature and philosophy, and very often those who wrote for us enjoyed the creative freedom the site afforded them – to write about subjects they were passionate about in a form that did not make sense elsewhere. Usually my criteria for accepting a piece was: Is this 3:AM enough? The hard work that has been put into it simply cannot be quantified, and investing in something in this way makes it especially difficult to leave behind. I joined the team not as an academic or even as a “writer” at the time, but primarily as a reader. As such, the fact that we were publishing for an audience of, ultimately, passionate readers was always at the forefront of my own decision making at the journal.

Recent events have left me sad, angry and distressed – especially because none of it was something I was able to influence despite my role at the magazine. I don’t believe we responded sensibly as a collective to any of the criticisms levelled at us, and I also don’t think we addressed our audience when and how we needed to. I did my utmost to ensure that 3:AM was a respectable, authoritative and unique platform – this is how it was when I joined and I wish I could say this is how it was when I left.

I wish Andrew and the team all the best as they work to re-establish 3:AM.

Advertisements