what's their problem?

too much pie in their bellies?

>>9612428
theyre so absurdly cynical it's hard to take anything they say seriously

File: the-paris-review-040[1].jpg (237KB, 1178x785px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1178x785px

What's their end game?

>>9612438
your post is so cynical it's hard to take seriously

Typical brooklynite leftist garbage.

"The world is bad and it can be better, but we won't do the work, unless it's on our doorstep"

They would rather admit the world is ending (it's not) than admit it's not and there's work to do.

>>9612466
it's especially bad because it is cultural criticism. imo, cultural criticism is best when there's a bit of enthusiasm for the things called 'culture.' when everything is chalked up to being NOT AS GOOD AS IT SEEMS, what's the point? it's like how i used to read national geographic as a kid. every single fucking article is first half about how great something is, the second half about how it's being destroyed. im not expressing myself well

>>9612456
this poster seems to be here from reddit.

File: reading-ikea-intructions-big-lebowski-confused[1].gif (2MB, 352x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x264px

>>9612449
>paris "review"
>based in new york and they don't review anything

>>9612478
paris review interviews are still legit. it used to be in paris when matthiessen was a spy. im actually reading the snow leopard right now, and im pretty surprised in a good way - it's great so far.

think he was just one of those patrician-types who was not an amazing author, and preferred the good life to his craft, but had great taste and influence

>>9612486
alot of the fiction, art and poetry is decent too.

the idea that the paris review only generates decent interviews is a meme. I really like the fact that their aren't reviews or editorials, and that you're given your own space to make your own mind up.

>>9612502
never said they weren't, but i dont read them. i do still almost always read the interviews

>>9612527
sorry. Its just generally people will highlight the interviews as its only merit.

What's your favourite interview?

>>9612537
i like all the classic ones like faulkner. adam phillip's and michel haneke's are great for non-classics

>>9612466
Who even wants a good world? Where's the fun in that

>>9612537
Houellebecq's Art of Fiction is good.
His interview about Soumission is utter trash that made me let my subscriptiin run out.
Also, most of their fiction is pretty middle of the road, inoffensive, and hasn't been truly important in your average 4chan user's lifetime. Is it good enough to read? Yeah.

in other news, the NYRB has fallen off a cliff. 2-3 yrs ago even it was decent and interesting. it is now unreadable. i guess i always saw it above classically middlebrow shit like the new yorker, atlantic, etc. but i was fooled

>>9613394
'Inoffensive' is the perfect way to put it. Same goes with the New Yorker.