The Icelandic Canadian - 01.03.2005, Side 11

Vol. 59 #3
THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
97
are enough to give one pause.
Of course, change isn’t always wel-
comed. Some readers miss the long, con-
tinuing biographies and historical pieces
(while some were glad to see them go).
Others felt the same way about the
Icelandic lessons (which have returned in a
different form). We’ve even had the com-
ment that L-H featured “too much North
Dakota” as if anyone could ever get
enough.
In a very real way, however, I feel L-H
has reflected quite sharply the Icelandic
community as a whole, whoever may be in
charge of the paper.
For decades, it was an eight-page
weekly, except for regular special issues
which would balloon with ads and articles.
It was almost always in black and white. It
was never on secure financial footing, and
even when times were good there was
always the sense that the wolves were at the
door. Dwindling subscriber numbers and
ad revenues were a constant source of
doubt: did the L-H have a future? Did it
even have an audience any more?
Those whose families subscribed and
who still consider themselves Icelandic
might respond “Of course,” without hesi-
tation. But sometimes hesitation is good.
The paper has changed because it has
had to. Subscriptions are still a large part of
the revenue, and without subscribers the ad
revenue disappears as well. So in order for
the paper to exist, it has to give people what
they want.
The paper is no longer in Icelandic.
Nor is it an 8-page weekly, because a 16-
page issue every two weeks is less expen-
sive to print and it allows for more plan-
ning for each issue, resulting in a much
smoother workflow. It’s also no longer
just black-and-white. Colour makes a
huge difference in terms of visual impact.
But the older generation who sub-
scribed because they always had is dimin-
ishing all the time. The forty- and fifty-
somethings, to a surprising extent, still
think of it as “amma’s paper” — all in
Icelandic, something they themselves
would never read. And the younger gener-
ation, in which I include myself, is largely
unaware of L-H, period!
The way in which the paper reflects the
Icelandic-North American community is
in its struggle to define itself. For a person
of Icelandic descent, the extent to which
you are “Icelandic” is a matter of personal
taste and, perhaps, familial obligation. For
L-H, an ostensibly Icelandic publication, it
means becoming as Icelandic as your read-
ers think they are. When people stop
thinking of themselves as “Icelandic,” there
will certainly be no more Logberg-
Heimskringla. In fact, the paper will likely
cease to exist before that final flicker of
Icelandic identity, because as long as the
paper exists, it will be a type of forum for
those of Icelandic descent — and as long as
a community has that, it will have some
cohesion.
But it’s not my intent to pronounce
some doom for either the L-H or the
Icelandic identity as a whole. I think there
has been enough “save the newspaper” talk
over the years. If L-H is good enough,
people will read it. If enough people read
it, the revenue will be there.
But how do you make sure it’s good
enough so that that can happen? Ah,
there’s the rub.
A chronic problem for the paper has
been staff turnover. It is largely invisible to
the readers, but it has real effects. The chief
one is the loss of experience and skills.
New staff members often have to reinvent
the wheel, given the short time they have
with their predecessors. (On my first stint
with the paper, I had NO time with my
predecessor -- in fact I barely met her.)
While new blood means new ideas, when
you’re in a constant state of flux it also
means lengthy adjustment periods. As an
example, when Lillian came on board in
early 2001,1 had been working at the paper
for about two and a half years — and was
the senior staff member by a long shot.
The current fundraising campaign to
support the paper, spearheaded by Dr. Ken
Thorlakson, is meant in part to end the
cycle of this chronic difficulty, as well as
secure the future financial stability of the
paper. This will be a remarkable step in the
history of L-H and its founding papers,
Logberg and Heimskringla.
The question remains, though: does an