Talk:The Paris Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some comments:

  • The list of contributors is FAR too long, being an eye-glazing blur of links. Settle on those that are most representative of the magazine.
  • Giving prominent mention to one nutbar conspiracy-theory writer's charges gives them an importance they don't deserve, even to rebut. The whole Controversy section should be terminated, with extreme prejudice, unless some objective evidence of Cummings's charge is provided. --Calton 02:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No argument from me

Thanks for your comments. Please note that this is my first attempt to overhaul a Wikipedia page, so I'm learning as I go - trying very hard to do most of it in "preview" mode, but ...

The Cummings guy is obviously coming from left field (as it were), but he has overriden previous deletions of his claims (see editing history). So the best move seemed to be to move the whole mess down to a separate section and add some, uh, qualifiers. I am in truth right there with you on wanting to "terminate with extreme prejudice."

As for the list of contributors, yeah, you're right, it's long. A comprehensive list, on the other hand, would run into the thousands. And I was trying to avoid just the usual suspects (Baldwin, Capote, Rich, Mailer ... ). It seemed more interesting to include "outsiders," less-known women poets, regional writers, young experimental writers. That said, I'll repeat, you're right, it's long. Would welcome suggested cuts.

- Tamsin, who doesn't yet have a user page, 5 Feb 2005 (don't have UTC)

This page claims that Marina Tsvetaeva was interviewed by the Paris Review. According to her Wikipedia page, she died in 1941, and, according to this page, the Paris Review was founded in 1953.

-Please note that Cummings allegations were confirmed in the NY Times story of January 13, 2007; and indeed, confirmed by co-founder Peter Matthiessen himself, who has admitted that the Paris review was founded entirely by CIA money. If you read the Times article, you'll see that current editor Philip Gourevitch admits that the CIA background of the magazine was common knowledge in their office. This is an extremely important story for the light it throws on the past fifty years of American literary history.

  • It seems that the Times piece only says that Mathiessen was a CIA recruit in 1953 (not too long after the birth of the agency, right?) and that his work with the Paris Review was a cover. It seems like calling the magazine a "cover" means that the magazine itself was not a tool of the CIA, but rather an alibi for Mathiessen while he was doing other, presumably less harmless things. Also note: "disseminating disinformation in the form of literary criticism" can't be correct, because the Paris Review has never published criticism, only interview, poetry, and fiction. Not sure if this whole thing--fascinating though it is--belongs as the first sentence either . . . but I'm hesitant to make changes myself. Jbalias 20:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct heading

Since the title of the magazine is The Paris Review, the heading should be changed to match. Pepso 20:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)