Paris Review and the Politics of De-acceptance

I've been following the discussions of The Paris Review's rejection of previously accepted work with concern and sorrow. My concern is for the poets and for the way such behavior diminishes my respect for institutions I would prefer to hold in high esteem. My sorrow is that fellow writers would condone such behavior as somehow deserved by its objects. Perhaps that view makes them feel safer from this sort of intellectual brutality.

There's not much to add to the extensive coverage this issue has received, except to respond to one point. A number of apologists for The Paris Review's new editorial staff supported their actions by arguing that the publication industry at large regularly kills previously accepted books and articles unless a full written contract exists. They ask why writers for literary journals, and poets in particular, should be treated any better. A number of commentators have remarked, rightly, that a verbal agreement should be able to be trusted, and if poets could afford to take legal action for tens of dollars and irremediable loss of publication credit, they might pursue a case successfully.

I object to this argument on still other grounds. My question would be why literary journals as publishers of poetry - or fiction and non-fiction - should settle for - indeed aspire to - lowering themselves to the worst the literary community has to offer in example. Perhaps literary journals treat their authors, on the whole, with more respect. If so, applaud it and protect it; it is all too rare. It is particularly sad when a journal that many look to as among the best editorially should prove themselves among the least ethically.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad