Is Philip Gourevitch Good for TPR?

There's some buzz about Philip Gourevitch taking the reins at The Paris Review. Now, I've got to say, I'm a pretty big fan of Gourevitch. His book on the Rwandan genocide is, in my opinion, the best available on that topic. I've also enjoyed his reporting elsewhere and I try to read him whenever I can.

With that said, I'm not sure if Gourevitch is good for TPR. First off:

"Philip greatly impressed us," Robert Silvers, co-editor of The New York Review of Books, and head of the magazine's search committee, said Thursday in a statement. "He is best known for his brilliant reporting. But he has an intense interest in fiction and fresh ideas for the magazine. His editorship promises to continue the tradition of The Paris Review by surprising us with new writing." . . .

Members of the board of directors have been eager to make the Review more commercial, reportedly wanting more nonfiction and "special" issues dedicated to nonliterary topics such as sports and fashion.

Okay, not I don't think Gourevitch is going to come out with fluff fashion and sports issues, but I do think that given Gourevitch's background in journalism, this Newsweek piece, and the fact that Gourevitch was chosen by the founder of The New York Review of Books, a periodical that has already abandoned literature for journalism, it seems likely that TPR is going to water down it's literature coverage.

I mean, basically, they had Brigid Hughes who said she was sticking with Plimpton's formula, and they got rid of her for a journalist. That thells me they want more journalism and less literature. Silvers and others have already said they want to widen TPR's reach and, well, you don't widen your reach by sticking with literature when you've been doing that for the last 50 years and your reach has remained the same.

From Newsweek:

When asked if there was any confusion about the direction that the board wanted to take for the magazine, [Hughes] replied, “Confusion reigns.”

Guinzburg declined to comment on the magazine’s vision, saying that “sounds too pretentious.” Most likely it means adding non-fiction or screenplay writers to the content, or coming out with special issues. . . .

The board insists that it is not trying to betray Plimpton’s legacy, but to keep the magazine relevant and vibrant by selling more subscriptions and heightening its public profile.

Gourevitch, for his own part, seems to be interested in clearing space for journalism:

Gourevitch did say he wanted to add nonfiction, especially "voice-driven" reporting "you want to read" because of how it's written as opposed to what it's about. He also wants to publish more poems by fewer poets, allowing readers to get more familiar with an individual's work.

Now, I do like the idea of having more "voice-driven" reporting. That could be interesting, and I will admit that something along those lines could be quite like literature. But still, given the example of the NYRB, we'll see exactly what this journalism turns out to be like.

Perhaps this piece (which I did enjoy) points toward TPR's future?