Saturday, June 04, 2005

Paris Review Follies

I've received e-mails filled with off-the-record complaints about the Richard Cummings article on our site. Noteworthy is the complainers refusal to go public. As with the anonymous posters we sometimes endure, secrecy with these people is all.

If they have complaints, take the essay on publicly. Engage in free discussion and debate. Let's look further into things and settle the matter. There remain many, many unanswered questions about this story-- for instance, the role of Robert Silvers, who apparently made the decision to change Paris Review editors. Instead, the people I hear from skulk around like rats. Why the mystery if there's nothing to hide?

Meanwhile, from Paris Review itself we've heard not even a murmur.

Curious how the questions raised in the Cummings essay are a taboo subject.

Where are the demi-puppets? These brave souls haven't noticed anything. "Paris Review?" they ask. "What's that? CIA? Never heard of it!"

The image of Sergeant Schultz quickly hurrying away from anything resembling controversy: "I know nothing. Nothing!"

For those not happy with the Cummings essay, I offer this remedy. I'll grant Robert B. Silvers of the Paris Review the opportunity to be interviewed, via e-mail or in person in New York. He'll have free opportunity to present his defense of the journal-- as long as I'm free to ask relevant questions concerning the matter.

Will Robert Silvers take advantage of this offer, to clear the air once and for all? I'll be waiting for his e-mail.

In the meantime the hosts of corporate-media flunkies (MediaBistro comes to mind) had best continue hiding, in case the story is not over.


Michael "The Mad Mick" Matheny said...

Just for the record, your Paris Review story got a favorable mention in my wife's blog, Published in New York (

King Wenclas said...

It's amazing to me that the lit-establishment is incapable of defending themselves. Not a peep from Paris Review. Will the NY Times continue to take this fraud of a lit journal seriously? Aiding to their manufactured importance?
(I'm sure there's MORE to the story than has been related-- why PR and their backers avoid public debate.)