The Falling Leaf Review is a literary web journal dedicated to the literary essay. I have expressed as much in other entries, here in the blog and elsewhere in the Pages. There is one I recall, an essay in which I outline the guiding metaphysics of this literary journal, originally called The Essay Review (and yes, a literary journal does have a metaphysics; every person has one). In as much as this review retains the url of theessayreview.wordpress.com, I will continue to refer to this journal from time to time as The Essay Review.
This journal, with its pages of Essays and its blog, where some of the essays are initially worked out, expresses the views of its author, JVR, who is also the Publishing Editor, sometimes referred to as the Editor-in-Chief. The essays are social and political commentary, although not primarily or ultimately. There are also critiques of culture, of language, of art, of music, of history, of historiography, of philosophy, of religion, of media, of film, of people, of behavior, of psychology, of pedagogy, of bureaucracy, of ethnicity, of love, desire, reason, knowledge, literacy . . . what else should I include? Everything? One could not include everything, but in attempting toward everything–and the toward here is important to note–the journal achieves its perpetuation. There are also essays of merely exposing a topic without the principal motive of critique. The staff has a like opinion about the mutually inclusive and exclusive pair, objectivity and subjectivity. Is the former possible or even probable; does it at all exist? It does as an absolute–or as all absolute values exist, metaphysically and transcendently, always as a potential here in spite of our inescapable subjectivity, although purely actual in its transcendence. I do know how we receive these ideas today in our culture, so let me go on to say . . .
In perpetuity is the desire of the editorial staff, this staff of one, this staff, myself. Herein, I am we. I do wear many hats–I never liked this cliche. Perhaps, I wear many vests? No, hats should do. Let’s leave it alone and not insist on always avoiding cliche. I had once even written a short two page piece on how there are many truths contained in our cliches. But we could learn to tweak them: we could say that we should be careful not to throw out the puppy with the flea bath water instead of the popular cliche. We could manage to say that a comparison intended would be like comparing steak and chicken, or pears and tangerines. There is always a way to refresh what we have always said and continue to say because we live in reflex and influx daily. Herein in our review–this ours is mine–we, I, do maintain a freshness in the style, but without a dogged insistence on having to be fresh. Consistency in the matter of dogma is the hobgoblin of a little mind and here I never wish nor will be small minded when it comes to this publication.