I do not want to discuss what a literary review is, although I should–discuss, not want to; I still do not want to discuss what one could be because I am only publishing this review for those who understand, for those who get it, you know, without explanation or too many diagrams and pictures. It would be a lie in this context to say I am trying to convince anyone of the valency or validity of publishing a literary review. What else can I say but that this literary review is what this literary review does; what it does is what it says, what it publishes, what I write.
I do not want to define what it should be, or what it could be–one or the other neither the same but in the matters of their foolery, equally lame at expressing what is. I do understand that a literary review must be committed to the highest quality in the writing, the highest quality in the thinking, the highest quality in the strength of its critique in order for it to be taken seriously by those who understand, those who have integrity in the matter and manner of such an enterprise. There is no sense in asking me if I believe in hierarchies of value or of achievement. I do. I believe in many hierarchies, and this does not have as closely a direct connection with the fact that I have not dispensed with metaphysics or our western traditions of metaphysical thinking as many of my post Post-structuralistly educated friends and countrymen. I am not going to delineate what this literary review has been; any reviewing of the review by anyone sensitive and open will reach this end.
This literary journal is what it is; what it was is better left to the historian of literary enterprises. Publishing has its history as does automotive manufacturing and sales. No editor wants his journal to be has been; if it were has been, so much the worse for those working toward publishing this has-been-magazine There is a debate over the merits of, as well as the implications between, editorials addressing readers from the point-of-view of we and those that address readers from the point-of-view of I.
Do we have to ask if I believe an editorial can really be written from the pov of I? I am sure it can. I do know that one from the pov of I and the pov of we has a different rhetorical edge, sharpened by its separete rhetorical strategy, and strategies are the sharpening of commentary or critique.
I relates to me, the actual person me and not only the inter grammatical reference of one pronomial case to another; yes, this me that I am is the principal writer of texts within the confines of this review, but this has little to do with the mask of we I wear when I write social or political commentary, critical commentary, that employs we as part of its strategy. There is no more to say about the review except that what it is is what it is when it is how it is where it is for whomever it will be.