Final issue for Parnassus

The literary world is full of unsung heroes whose cultural impact is greater than their name recognition.

For the last 30 years, one of these heroes has been Herbert Leibowitz, the founder and longtime editor of Parnassus: Poetry in Review, the New York City based publication that ranks among the most influential poetry magazines of our era.

Like many readers, I've come to admire Parnassus for the clarity and depth of its reviewing, the high-minded inclusiveness of its editorial philosophy, and even the quality and heft of its volumes. But I didn't realize it was essentially put together on a shoestring budget by a college professor and a few of his graduate assistants in the spare room of a Manhattan apartment.

Last month, Leibowitz announced that the next issue of Parnassus, a 600-page, Thirtieth Anniversary "International Poetries" issue due out this autumn would be the magazine's last.

In recent years, funding the publication without a major patron or underwriter has proven to be in Leibowitz's own words, "an insuperable obstacle," forcing him to dip into personal savings to finance several issues.

Recent articles in Poets & Writers Magazine and the Wall Street Journal have reported on Leibowitz's decision, with the WSJ in particular focusing on the contrasting fortunes of Parnassus and Chicago based Poetry magazine's The Poetry Foundation, the recent beneficiary of a $200 million bequest from pharmaceutical heiress Ruth Lilly.

Ironically, even as the publication closes down, Parnassus will be honored in a high profile program at the Poetry Center of Manhattan's 92nd Street Y on Dec. 10th, and Leibowitz himself is slated to receive the newly created Randall Jarrell Award in Criticism from the Poetry Foundation.

For all its accomplishments, excellence alone was not enough to save Parnassus. According to Leibowitz, the magazine's perennial funding issues mattered less than a "failure of nerve" on the part of many of today's poets to engage in critical dialogue.

Here is a portion of his most recent "Editor's Manifesto" which you can read in full at Parnassus: Editor's Manifesto:

"Over the last fifteen years or so, as the prestige of high culture has steadily declined, the audience for belletristic criticism—as opposed to the jargon-riddled academic variety—has dwindled. Yet what I find perhaps even more distressing is the reluctance of poets to write honestly about their peers...This widespread timidity, this failure of nerve, quashes the frank exchange of ideas; it closes the valves of everyone’s attention like stone, to paraphrase Emily Dickinson...If reviewers hail nearly every poet as being worthy of a laurel wreath, why should we believe them?"

Comments

[celeste lawson]

I do lament, allbeit belated, on hearing the sad news on the demise of Parnassus. I have no comment on the argument of academic vs non-academic literary criticism, but certainly will express what a shame it is for the publication to die of financial starvation when for
thirty years Parnassus fed the literary world a diet of rich food for the poets soul ... Academics and non-acadmics alike should mourn that reality. I am, however, somewhat suprised that the Poetry Foundation has not taken any steps to intervene and offer assistance - especially in light of their recent good fortune (which may of course have its own set of restrictions). But, most foundations have some flexibilty to step in and offer aid in a time a crisis, especially when a cultural icon is collapsing. I confess ignorance on the parameters of the Poetry Foundation, but surely the mission and work of Parnassus reflects(ed) shared some of their fundemental values and goals.
Perhaps this has changed since the news of the closing was made - I'm a week late in responding. If not, how completely unfortunate.

[s. m. hutton]

I'm very sorry to hear about any literary project closing up. However, I must take issue with the false issue of placing the belles lettres and academic criticism in opposition. Jargon is in the eye of the beholder, and anyone trafficking in language uses it as a tool.Different tools for different projects. I also have a problem with the age-old ever revolving laments over the loss of "high culture." Beethoven's concertos, Ruben's or Van Gogh's paintings and Stravinsky's ballets where considered "savage" by mainstream contemporaries. Perhaps the emphasis on a "non-academic" criticism is just another permutation of insularity? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong! i will make a point of seeing the last issue of Parnassus. As I say, I hate to see any literary project squelched.