This is important because they are missing the vast swathe of content that is produced in this day and age. I wouldn't be surprised if 80, 90, or even 95 of written content was digital only these days.
All in all, I think it is time for The Paris Review to interview a writer who is known primarily for their online-only content.
I find it interesting that many of the established literary magazines still haven't extended the definition of literature to capture blogging and tweeting as new forms of media.
They do a good job of including journalism, comedy writing, poetry, and short fiction. But they never extend their interviews to new forms of online-only or online-native writing.
Is there is any justification for stopping the definition of literature short of blogging, tweeting, Tumblr'ing, etc?
There are two that come to mind. Firstly, that The Paris Review considers these forms of media too new. I, of course, understand that it takes a while for the establishment to feel comfortable with new things. But, honestly, online media isn't that new anymore. It was new 20 years ago, but certainly not today.
Secondly, perhaps someone might say that online media is mostly functional and non-creative -- or that it's not a forum for creative media. Surely, that is true for much online writing -- but so is it true for offline writing.
Finally, it feels funny to say that creative writing can exist on some platforms, like Twitter. But, why? Because they are short-form? Doesn't that still give writers the room to produce hyperconcentrated creative forms? Haiku are short -- are they not creative, and worthy of the term 'literature'?