Behind the scenes at The Great Paris Review Poetry Purge of 2010, part 7: Lorin Stein writes (someone) back.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | extras

Paris Review editor Lorin Stein has responded to a letter sent by Luke Hankins, which is posted on the “Conditional Boycott of The Paris Review” Facebook group, founded by Hankins. And he’s, like, reasonable. Holy shit indeed.

I would point out that I have not joined the Facebook group, which as I write this comprises about 30 44 members–including  former Paris Review poetry editor Dan Chiasson, former contributors such as poet Ron Slate, and Lorin Stein himself.

“I feel that this is a limited success,” Hankins writes via Facebook mail. “I’m pleased about the results, though I do hope Lorin will continue to consider additional steps to redress the mistakes he and his staff have made.”

Texts of the wall posts follow. I’m also posting  emails I had sent to Stein and the Review’s new poetry editor, Robyn Creswell, which was sent to both NYU and Paris Review email addresses.

+++++++
Dear Mr Hankins,

Thank you for your frank and very thoughtful note (pasted below).

I have to say, I agree with you entirely. I feel a strong duty, as the new editor of the Review, to shape the magazine as best I can, according to the lights of our new staff. But having heard powerful arguments from several of the poets whose work we cut (and having read the posts of Daniel Nester’s blog), I’m also persuaded that we have a lasting obligation to every poet whose work was accepted by the editors who came before us. I’m about to write to these poets personally, to express my apologies and to offer the full fee that we owe them.

I’ve felt very unhappy to be at odds with good friends, and poets I admire, and I’m grateful to you for a public space to tell them (and the members of your Facebook group) how sorry I am. The error certainly won’t be repeated.

Best regards,
Lorin

Mr. Stein,

I am writing to inform you of the existence of the Facebook group, Conditional Boycott of The Paris Review (see link attached below), which I created in response to the news of your “de-acceptance” of poems that had already been accepted by previous (“previous/current,” I should say) editors at TPR. Our position (open for revision) is clearly indicated on the group page. Our number is currently small (28 members), but considering the rate of membership over the short time the group has been in existence, statistically speaking, I think we can expect a brief period of exponential growth. I will also be taking some active steps to increase visibility and membership, including (1) asking some friends who are well-connected with the sizeable literary community on Facebook (including one who has, literally, thousands of Facebook friends, most of whom are writers) to help enlist membership, and (2) consulting the tables of contents from a number of issues of The Paris Review and looking for past contributors who have Facebook profiles in order to solicit their input and invite them to join the boycott.

Regardless of numbers — even if we don’t get a single additional member — I will in the near future write a letter to the board of directors of TPR and to yourself and Mr. Creswell on behalf of the group. The letter will be vetted by the group and will indicate the number of members at the time of writing. The impetus behind my actions is the firm belief that your behavior was unethical and distinctly unprofessional, unbecoming of a person who is supposed to represent an entity larger than himself. The “de-accepted” writers had contractual (verbal contracts should be honored in a just society) with The Paris Review, not with any individual. Your current editorial position is actually irrelevant to the fact that their poems were accepted by previous editors ON BEHALF OF The Paris Review. You are a representative. You are not coeval with your publication. But I will expound on this in my eventual letter. In short, I hope you will apologize publicly — in the pages and on the website of TPR — and will take steps to redress those you have wronged. I also hope you will do whatever is necessary to enact policy at TPR that will prevent unethical editorial behavior in the future.

Please visit the group page, read our position, and feel free to contact me with any comments — or even to join the group and write on the Wall or Discussion Board, as crazy as that may sound.

Sincerely,
Luke Hankins

+++++++

As a bonus, here are the two emails I sent to Lorin Stein and Robyn Creswell. The first is before I wrote about the story at all, and the second was mid-week last week.

Dear Robyn:
My name is Daniel Nester, and I am writing to request an interview on behalf of We Who Are About To Die .

I am writing you to ask about your relatively new editorship; in particular, your decision, or perhaps that of Lorin Stein, to rescind the offer of publication to several of the writers’ work accepted by your predecessors.

This seems to be an extraordinary measure and it is my understanding that at least three poets whose work had been accepted for publication were recently withdrawn from future consideration. I am interviewing several of those poets, and I would like to hear from those from The Paris Review as well, to get a full story.

I would prefer this interview take place either on the phone or in person, as opposed to email. I will be in New York City this Thursday, July 22, and the morning of July 23, and can arrange my schedule to meet either at your office or elsewhere.
Thank you for your time.

Daniel Nester

+++++++

Dear Robyn Creswell –

My name is Daniel Nester. I have tried to email you a couple times and call you at The Paris Review, to interview you. I have been blog-reporting about The Paris Review this week, and so I am trying you at your NYU address.

Here’s are the emails I sent. I would appreciate hearing back from you.

DN

***

I am writing you to ask about your relatively new editorship; in particular, your decision, or perhaps that of Lorin Stein, or both of you, to rescind the offer of publication toseveral of the writers’ work accepted by your predecessors.

This seems to be an extraordinary measure and it is my understanding that at least 15 poets whose work had been accepted for publication were recently withdrawn from future consideration. I am interviewing several of those poets, and I would like to hear from those from The Paris Review as well, to get a full story.

I would prefer this interview take place either on the phone or in person, as opposedto email.

If email is better, here are the kind of questions I wanted to ask.

***

What is your reaction to the coverage?

When exactly did you decide to do cut? Had it been brewing for some time? Was it before or after your comments expressing excitement for a “holy shit” section in yourupcoming issue?

How many poets were “saved” by Dan and Meghan?

How many poets were cut?

How would you characterize the reaction from these writers?

I joked to the New York Observer about Robyn Creswell’s lack of experience, but I would like to know. Has he edited poetry, or worked at a literary magazine before? Did you consider other candidates?

Finally: Considering The Paris Review is an institution that’s been around 60 years, and I assume you plan on a tenure that lasts some time, what’s the rush? When Paul Muldoon took over from Alice Quinn at The New Yorker, for example, there was a backlog of some months’ worth of accepted work, and Muldoon and his staff shepherded those poems into print. That’s just one recent example of an alternate scenario. But I guess that logic would imply there’s a different standard or process for publishing poetry as opposed to other sections or genres. So I guess one follow-up to that is: Have you cut any fiction or nonfiction or other pieces that had been accepted by the previous regime?