“boston review” or “shitty suck-sack”? you be the judge

Posted by @ 12:27 am on October 14th, 2008

in an attempt to be really mean, i decided to randomly attack a journal.  so i went to google and typed in “the most literary journal” hoping someone would have referred to themselves like that.  then i tried “mega awesome lit journal” and i got nothing.  then i typed in a stupid sounding name “the boston review” and ta-da, it exists.  here, for your spiteful edification, is me interjecting things into their about page:

“Boston Review is a nonpartisan magazine of ideas [yeah, shitty ideas]: animated by hope [and stupid-assedness] , committed to equality and reason [and being lame and butthole-y], convinced that the imagination eludes political categories [p.s.: we blow more than the show “m.a.s.h”]. We see each issue as a public space where people can loosen the hold of conventional preconceptions [really? or perhaps, loosen a stool into your mouth, just perhaps?] and bring this openness to bear on today’s most pressing issues [like what a good plot arc is]. Our mission requires that as editors we shun polemic and partisanship [and being not-dumb], uphold the highest standards of argument and evidence, value ambition and originality, seek widely diverse perspectives, and make complex ideas accessible [also to publish things as close compositionally to shit as possible without streaking the printer]. We have a national readership of men and women [and people who wear slippers in the reading room when they read our publication] who are engaged in the challenge of today’s world; who want deeper [anal] coverage of current affairs than the mainstream media offers; and who see the arts as an essential part of the human enterprise [yeah, the human enterprise of being a fuckhead with a shriveled penis that wears brooks brothers khakis].

Tags: , ,