Post-Plimpton 'Paris' Controversy
by Steven Zeitchik -- Publishers Weekly, 1/31/2005
News that the Paris Review would not renew the contract of editor-in-chief Brigid Hughes, who has held the position for less than a year, seems to have sparked more attention than the magazine itself. But while the Paris Review remains more a conversation topic than it does a reading choice, the saga has become juicy, full of generational divides, postmortem squabbling and the question of the themed fashion issue.
Last year, longtime staffer Hughes was selected after a fierce debate within the magazine's newly created board over whether to attempt to continue strictly with founder George Plimpton's legacy or turn over the keys to John Jeremiah Sullivan, a magazine writer whom some on the board were said to favor because of his eye and flair for nonfiction.
Now, with the announcement that Hughes's contract won't be renewed in March, the battle has flared up again. This time, it's between the (mostly older) board and the staff, over whether Hughes was given a fair shot—and how she should be replaced.
Most say Plimpton's formula of writer interviews and new fiction is being pitted against something else. The problem is how to define that something else—it's putatively nonfiction but more likely a new New Yorker topicality (flashpointed is 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 Hughes decision. "It's clear in retrospect that they never intended for Brigid to stay beyond a year," said one source. And they criticized the board for not clarifying how they want to revamp the Plimpton formula.
But one source close to the board said that Hughes's experience became an issue (she's worked only under Plimpton for most of her professional life) and admit that while the new vision isn't easily clarified, Harper's and the New Yorker continue to serve as beacons.
The board maintains it has not contacted anyone yet to replace Hughes, but sources indicate otherwise, with names like former New Yorker literary editor Bill Buford popping up. They say that Sullivan 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.
Meanwhile, the factions argue, mostly through blind quotes in the press. But as someone relatively impartial said, "They should stop talking about it and just get someone new already. Anyone new. This is getting tiring."
