The Chicago Review of Books is an independent literary review dedicated to diverse voices, settings, genres, and ideas in fiction, nonfiction, poetry, comics, and anything else that’s printed on paper. We want to make the literary conversation more inclusive.

Diverse voices. We believe literary criticism should engage with writers from all continents and cultures. We believe independent, university, and small presses deserve a larger place in the cultural conversation alongside the Big Five publishers.

Diverse settings. While we do cover some Chicago-based writers and books, the Chicago Review of Books is as untethered to city limits as the New York Review of Books and the Los Angeles Review of Books.

Diverse genres. We do not believe in the antiquated distinction between “literary” and “genre” fiction. We read an eclectic mix of books and will never compliment a title by saying it “transcends the genre.”

Diverse ideas. We seek to explore the connections between literature, current events, politics, and pop culture. Our contributors are as diverse as the books we cover, from established authors, journalists, and writing professors to students and freelance critics.

All rights reserved, Chicago Review of Books, Inc.

3 thoughts on “Mission

  1. The Chicago Review of Books is independent in the sense that Communist Bernie Sanders is an Independent. “Independent” is what Socialists in Chicago have called themselves since the 1940’s, when they had to stop using more accurate descriptions of their beliefs. The Left entered the world of literary criticism in the US in the 1970’s when the KGB instructed their “agents of influence” to enter mainstream American society, rather than publicly protesting US foreign policy. They only use the word “diverse” because that is part of their dogma. The Left always changes the meaning of words into their opposite. Note there is no physical address listed here for the CRB, and they had their awards program on the White Northside, not in Hyde Park. I have requested that the University of Chicago and the University of Chicago Press should completely dissociate themselves in writing from the Chicago Review of Books and fire any CRB editors working there because their association impedes the major mission of the University. However, unlike Socrates, they have no spine. Milo himself has praised University of Chicago policies, and the real University of Chicago should invite him to speak, just as they have always allowed Communist Party leaders to speak. The University of Chicago used to be a role model for other liberal arts colleges, but its cowardice has made it irrelevant. Eventually, they will not be able to find faculty with real PhD’s, even in the sciences, unless these scholars are being trained in former communist countries, who have now banned traitors to liberty.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s