The Handwriting on the Wall Theory. As things deteriorated in the editorial department, many staff members hungered for a little discipline, even it if meant stiffening the hierarchy. The staff formed a search committee to look for a replacement for editor Paul Solman, who resigned to become a staff writer. The search committee interviewed candidates and eventually offered one the job, but he rejected it out of concern for staff laxity, and especially, the growing desire among the staff to sell the paper ("instead of riding it out," as one staff members says, "waiting until it turned into a piece of crap.")

Kay Larson, the Real Paper's art critic and a member of the search committee, was somewhat surprised with the refusal of the editor candidate, but she could understand it. "How do you work with a staff, half of which wants to get out?" she says.

"I respected his decision." Peter Southwick says. "He must have been able to see the handwriting on the wall."

There's something sadly cyclical about this theory. As things got worse at the Real Paper, the editor's job became less attractive. The less attractive the job, the harder it was to fill with a tough but fair editor who could bolster morale. Finally, the staff voted to make one of its new staff writers. David Gelber, the new editor. It was Gelber who was given the power to fire people in a more streamlined way, a power he used to dispose of the staff writer caught in the marital triangle. (He also fired film critic Stuart Byron, who is suing the Real Paper for back pay and bonuses, claiming that his rights as a staffer/owner were violated.)

Gelber was fairly popular when the staff elected him editor last November, and for a while there was talk of a new spirit at the Real Paper--or an old spirit at the Real Paper, something close to the shared high purpose that launched the paper. But it didn't last long. Writers soon tangled with Gelber over some of his new procedures. (For example, Craig Unger '69 didn't see why he now had to clear in advance with Gelber all items in his regular page three "short Takes" column.) Factions developed, or regenerated, with some staff members complaining that the Real Paper--almost two and a half years old then--still needed sound direction from the top. As a staff member says now, trying to explain the decline that led to the sale, "We never had a good editor." (For his part, Gelber says the changes he made--which included the controversial elimination of the regular Friday morning staff meeting--were designed only to increase productivity and not to amass power.)

The Know What You're Getting Into Theory. Some Real Paper staff members think that many on the paper didn't understand what a staff-run paper entailed. For one thing says Peter Southwick, it required hiring people who get along well with others, which wasn't always the case with new employees.

And Stuart Byron thinks that a staff-owned paper must be a "writer's book" like Esquire rather than an "editor's book" like New York magazine. That is, a staff-owned paper should enshrine the right of writers to "go off in directions the editors don't like." He cites the Village Voice, which doesn't have the Real Paper's staff share holder structure but whose pages are peppered with fiefdoms where writers like Jill Johnston and Jonas Mekas run amok without editorial interference. A staff owned paper that does not allow that freedom, Byron thinks, will inevitably be rife with infighting.

The Collectivist Ship Awash in a Capitalist Sea Theory Chief Spokesman: Andrew Kopkins, Real Paper film critic "Collectivist behavior is a political act," he says, and it's hard to sustain a collective in a hostile, uncollective environment. People who try to do so, as Real Paper staffers did, feel "very isolated" --and they are soon torn between conflicting needs. Kopkind gave voice to this argument last spring, in an article in the Cambridge based. "Working Papers" magazine. His piece was a study of "alternative media" in Boston, titled "Hip Deep, in Capitalism." For the "alternative" paper or radio station, Kopkind wrote.

All the contradictions and ambiguities of the counterculture have been handed down as well: the tension between ideological authenticity--and commercial success, between collective work and the efficiency of command.

Clearly, the Real Paper, with a circulation of 100,000 (some of it distributed free) makes frequent bows to popular business practices in order to survive. In that sense it is part of, but estranged from, the capitalist business community that it must look to for support. Kopkind doesn't think collectively-owned newspapers are doomed, but he thinks their chances are better if they receive encouragement from the community.

None of the theories that attempt to explain the Real Paper sale concerns the quality of the newspaper, which staff members in all factioris consistently rate as very high (often calling the Real Paper the best-written newspaper in Boston). If it earns that distinction, it should be noted that the competition is not staff, and that the Real Paper is often thin and uninteresting (more so these days, some staffers admit, because of plunging morale).

Still, the Real Paper, unlike similar publications in other cities, is more often solid than not. It has the prolific Andrew kopkind, a considerable resource; Ronn Campisi, a clever graphicist; Peter Southwick, whose photography is consistently original. On longhaul local stories like the Edelin trial, the Real Paper often gives more complete and crisp coverage than even the daily Globe.

The Real Paper has also shown an ability to produce good investigative reporting, not the muck-faking that similar weekly papers often crank out. Recently it revealed that Suffolk Country Sheriff Thomas Eisenstadt, for example, spent public funds to furnish his house, spending money for velvet drapes, a Pakistani rug, even an escargot set. It was a story that the Real Paper beat The Globe to by several steps.

"Sure they did!" admits Globe editor Tom Winship, who calls himself a fan of the Real Paper and Phoenix. "We've been scooped many times by both of them. They're both good, lively, feisty publications that keep us on our toes."

Martin Linsky, in a statement of intent to the Real Paper staff, has promised to keep what is good about the Real Paper and make the rest better. It is a glib promise perhaps--as one staff member said, "He said what every body wanted to hear." But there is a tentative inclination on the part of Real Paper staff members to give Linsky his chance to shape the paper without breaking it. They don't credit him with much journalistic knowhow--a recent stint as a Globe editorial writer is his only serious credential--but even a staff member who called Linsky an "oily, greasy guy" concedes that "it's possible that Linsky cares enough about the paper to do a good job with it." It is about time, the staff member said, because things at the paper have degenerated to the point where "nobody gives a shit."

Publisher Rotner has a different way of putting it. "You know," he says softly, "now it is just like before the end of school, when you know it will be over in a few days and you just stop."