We're not terribly deep thinkers or anything like that but a couple of things are buzzing around our tiny brain these days and we thought we'd widen the conversational circle on it. It's either that or sit endlessly like Steve McQueen bouncing a baseball off the wall of our cell.
First question is this: Robert Birnbaum's chat with Rick Hertzberg got us thinking - once again - about the question of how his book was assigned for review in NYTBR. It seemed pretty obvious to us at the time that assigning the book to a right-wing clown like Richard Brookhiser pretty much declares that you've got no intention of judging the book fairly. And yet, the obvious counterpoint is clear: Is it any more fair to hand the book to, say, Frank Rich? One sees both sides. So that brings us to an obvious question - there's a void to fill, and who best to step in? In a viciously partisan season, how does one responsibly assign coverage of political titles? We've been wracking our brains (admittedly an unimpressive feat) to come up with a name of someone we'd have assigned to the book, and so far nothing. So, you get to be Sam Tanenhaus for a day. Who do you give the review to?
The other point we're fulminating upon comes from a discussion we've had with a litblogging pal, wherein we discussed our shared discomfort with literary journals which prominently feature their editorial staff as contributors. We both detect the whiff of something vaguely unseemly to such an enterprise. And yet, within two days, we chanced upon two stories that suggested other perspectives. First off, there's Sven Birkert's much-linked-to piece about literary journals, in which one finds this interesting passage:
Think of the taste-making triumphs that were T.S. Eliot's Criterion, F.R. Leavis's Scrutiny, Cyril Connolly's Horizon, and Stephen Spender's Encounter. These were the heralds of Modernism, giving early notice of the names that are by now half-embalmed on high school and college syllabi -- names like W.H. Auden, George Orwell, Marianne Moore, and Gertrude Stein.
In a related point, in his review of the new Borges biography for the Atlantic, Christopher Hitchens mentions an article Borges contributed to Proa, the journal he co-founded. (Side note: Hitchens' review, which required us to purchase the magazine since Atlantic is now off-limits online, managed to single-handedly finish off any lingering enthusiasm we once had for him. It's a pompous, bloated, self-indulgent turn that focuses more on his own meeting with Borges than on the book itself. We found ourselves quite pleased that Atlantic has taken itself offline.)
All of which begs the question: Clearly, there is a long, fairly glorious tradition of writers contributing to their own journals. Why launch them at all, but for the burning need for a platform, the desire to get one's thoughts out into the world? So when did this aesthetic (for lack of a better word) change? What has contributed to this modern fastidiousness (or perhaps fussiness) - which we certainly share - about separating the lines between editors and contributors? And how reasonable an impulse is it?
Screenplay submitted, chapter finished. It's amazing what prattle rushes in to fill the void when you're not working ...
Official Right Wing Watchdog here again! I can understand your disagreement with Brookhiser's politics but he is anything but an "right-wing clown." He is a respected and talented historical biographer and essayist. There are plenty of conservative pundits and talking heads for whom I have little respect even if I am largely in agreement with their political positions, but Richard Brookhiser is a scholar and writer with a great deal of talent and intelligenece.
As to your question about the line between editors and contributors, I think it is up to readers and fellow writers to determine if the quality is there. If a journal or magazine becomes simply a place for the same old ideas to be trotted out or if editorial standards seem to slip and this allows less talented writers to get published at the expense of those with talent but without connections then readers and critics should point that out. I don't think there is a greal deal to be gained by a legalistic approach, rather quality and intelligence should be the guide.
Again, lit blogs can play a role here. They can be a communication tool that allows readers and writers to discuss these issues and help shape reputations and set standards.
Posted by: Kevin Holtsberry | August 24, 2004 at 11:24 AM
If I were Sam Tanenhaus for a day, I would assign the review to Ryan Lizza. Is he a leftie? I suspect he may be but don't know -- I just always enjoy his articles in The New Republic. He's wry and funny and yet ever so scrutinizing.
Your second question: A problem with publishing one's colleagues would be editing one's colleagues. It seems like that would call for strength of mind, to say, "Sorry, F.R. It's back to the drawing board for you." And I think we've all seen publications where a certain amount of slackness has crept in there.
Another pitfall of this type of venture seems to be the potential for a sameness of voice to creep in -- as the writers begins to identify a group voice and (unconsciously or consciously) ape its style. I seem to remember an anecdote about the early days of the New Yorker and Ross fulminating about the high neurotic tone that had become de rigeur for the Talk of the Town pieces. Does anyone else recall this story? Someone had written a piece about going to the theater and getting fainty at the event and Ross drew the line there.
My point is, that this is perhaps one of the roots of the distrust of the blurring of lines: Sameness of voice?
Posted by: CAAF | August 24, 2004 at 12:23 PM
Seconding Kevin's first point--I'm no fan of the right, but Richard Brookhiser is hardly in the same league as, say, George Will or even Leon Wieseltier as far as "clownish" writing is concerned.
But I'd have tried to assign the review to Hunter S. Thompson anyway.
Posted by: Ron | August 24, 2004 at 10:45 PM