I'm sure the n+1 editors mean well and all, but what kind of reaction did they expect out on the west coast? Hatin' begets hatin', buddy.
"Getting along" is nice and all, but it's fucking boring as hell.
We should leave Iraq and invade Europe.
"We felt literary culture had become too nicey nice."
It's interesting that the Believer launched at approximately the same time at n + 1 for the opposite reason.
I don't mean to be falsely nostalgic, C and B, but I find it hard to compare anything to the mid-century salad days of the public intellectual. Think that the McCarthy/Hellman feud, as hilarious and venomous and ruinous as it was, was spawned by not just personal animosity or intellectual disagreement, but by the fact that the former was a Troskyite and the latter a Stalinist and then wonder, does today's intellectual, concerned with such issues as "is McSweeney's truly good?" actually have anything at stake? Politically, ethically, aesthetically? We treat intellectuals as health food, but if we really valued them (or they themselves) wouldn't they be potential menaces?
Where's a link to the subject of this post?
Here's a link: n+1.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).