Citations to outside works, which should be used sparingly, should employ endnotes and standard Chicago format.
General Information for Authors of Historiographical Essay Submissions: also publishes historiographical essays. Citations should appear as endnotes (numbered consecutively throughout the text).
I don’t care at all for Dale Peck’s enormous, steroidal renunciations, nor for the temperature of his rhetoric; he seems to me a natural novelist—I praised his strange second novel in the , years ago—and an unnatural critic. Coetzee, Vikram Seth, Anne Enright, David Means, Geoff Dyer, David Bezmozgis, James Kelman, Marilynne Robinson, Richard Yates, Francisco Goldman, V. I am assumed to be a “moralist,” but I like best to lose myself in the rich prose of a Bellow or a Melville or a Henry Green; probably no critic of contemporary fiction is more drawn to style and the enjoyment of style.
There has always seemed something grim to me about Mary Mc Carthy’s dogged insistence on remaining angry for forty years. I love ideas in fiction, but not as Julian Barnes or Richard Powers practice them.
Because essay submissions proceed through a “double-blind” peer review process, in addition to review by the editorial board, authors should make sure that their name, institutional affiliation, and other contact information does not appear anywhere in the text or filename of the article.
Upon acceptance, authors must provide an image, associated with their essay, that’ll appear on the web publication.
General Information for Authors of Book Review Submissions: We ask that authors contact the editorial staff prior to their submission in order to determine the monograph to be reviewed. All reviews should end with the reviewer’s name and institutional affiliation.There I was, waiting for the sweets of positivity, for the proposals and manifestos and counterarguments, only to find the merest dusting of kiddies’ sugar: “And what can we do, with thirty-six weeks left on our discount subscription [to the ]? We’re young yet: so we’ll go and be among the young.” Perhaps this was ironically intended; a few lines earlier there had emerged the stronger hint of a proposal: “If only they had allowed more positive individuality, cultivated something new, and still kept an old, dignified adherence to the Great Tradition, running continuously to them (as they hoped) from the New York Intellectuals, whose ashes were in urns in the vaults if they were anywhere. ” Positive individuality; the cultivation of “something new” (anything, as long as it is something? The Editors had unwittingly proved the gravamen of their own critique: that it is easier to criticize than to propose.; and rather than fall into easy pugilism, it might be worth defending, first of all, a certain kind of negativity; and then worth chancing a certain kind of positivity. The journal also welcomes historical work from authors based in other disciplines.Manuscripts are to be written in English, double-spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font, with margins of one inch on all sides, and saved in Microsoft Word format.General Information for Authors of Article Submissions: Article submissions should be sent via e-mail to [email protected], and should include a current C. and a 100 word abstract describing the work under consideration.Citations should appear as endnotes (numbered consecutively throughout the text).Or rather, perhaps the first, properly defended, will come to seem indistinguishable from the second, will take on the luster of the necessary: I’ve always been fond of Turgenev’s remark about Belinsky, that he was “not a negationist; he negated in the name of an ideal.” In this vein, it might also be worth observing that a magazine loosely marshaled around individuality, tradition, something new, and a dash of youth, is a respectable and worthy project—not to mention a thoroughly traditional one (Eliot’s , Eliot has wise words about Matthew Arnold’s lifelong attack on philistinism; the danger, said Eliot, is that such a struggle will be endless, may consume a whole life: there is always more philistinism about than its available correction. A longer list would include Svevo, Verga, Hrabal, Henry Green, Joseph Roth, Chekhov, Tolstoy, Camus, Sartre, Hardy, Mann, Austen, Shakespeare, Lawrence (I edited a volume of his short stories), Bernanos, Gogol, Graham Greene, Woolf, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Hamsun, Dostoevsky, and Wodehouse. I am assumed to be a defender of “realism,” but I have skeptically reviewed Robert Stone and Tom Wolfe and John Irving, finding precisely their “realism” too conventional to deserve that noble and expansive word.The critic should be wary of endlessly chasing the bad. I am assumed to be an “aesthete,” but it is precisely John Updike’s aestheticism that has goaded me again and again into print in the last ten years.Because article submissions proceed through a “double-blind” peer review process, in addition to review by the editorial board, authors should make sure that their name, institutional affiliation, and other contact information does not appear anywhere in the text or filename of the article.Upon acceptance, authors must provide an image, associated with their article, that’ll appear on the web publication.