We'll Always Have Paris Review (Hand-wringing)

by Steven Zeitchik, PW Newsline -- Publishers Weekly, 1/27/2005

There's probably been more digging for dirt on the Paris Review in the last ten days than there's been reading of the Paris Review in the last ten years. Four full-on accounts and many smaller ones, nearly all containing telling words like "replace" "define" and "uncomfortable."

Having decried it, we'll indulge in it. And why not? It's a juicy, if unfortunate, battle--full of generational divides, postmortem legacy squabbling and the eternal question of when it's finally time to do a literary fashion issue.

So what's really going on? Basically, board and staff (and board and board) are fighting over loyalty to George Plimpton--either there's too little, too much or the wrong kind. Most say Plimpton's formula of writer interviews and new fiction is being pitted against, well, something else. The problem is that something else-- it's putatively non-fiction but more likely a new New Yorker topicality (flashpointed in a reputed board push for a fashion issue that the staff ridicules and the board denies).

Those close to the staff continue to cry raw deal over the decision not to re-up Plimpton torchbearer Brigid Hughes. "It's clear in retrospect that they never intended for Brigid to stay beyond a year," said one. And they mock the board's desire to up subscribership via a new editor with a New Yorker or Harpers sense of journalism, saying it will erode cachet/grant money without increasing readership. "They don't have a vision. And without a vision, you're screwed," said one aligned with the (mostly younger) staff. And then, of course, "That fashion issue. Do you believe that?"

But one source close to the (mostly older) board said that the board was initially serious about Hughes but that her experience--she's worked only under George Plimpton for most of her professional life--became an issue early on. Differing views on non-editorial issues didn't help. "I don't think anyone saw how difficult this was going to be to meld this into a business."

The board maintains it's not contacted anyone but sources indicate otherwise, with names like former New Yorker literary editor Bill Buford coming up (if only he could actually get paid every time he was named as a candidate for a literary job). They also say that magazine writer John Jeremiah Sullivan, the board's alternative to Hughes a year ago, is likely not to get involved this time around. One other possible change: the roughly three employees who worked under Hughes--sources say they're guaranteed through June but not beyond it, probably to make it easier to lure a new editor.

In the meantime, the factions will argue, mostly through blind quotes abetted by, um, people like us. One source close to the staff: "It's ridiculous that they keep saying they want to find another George Plimpton. They can't." One close to the board: "But we have to find someone who can do a lot of different things and who can bring a certain kind of energy." And someone else close to the process: "They should stop talking about it and just get someone new already. Anyone new. This is getting tiring."