^ totally recommend that
― markers, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:15 (4 years ago) Permalink
yeah i read that one the other day, great stuff
― ciderpress, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:16 (4 years ago) Permalink
it was interesting, lol scientists
― ice cr?m, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
i liked this one, seemed like a great premise for movie: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_collins
― gr8080, Monday, 3 January 2011 20:43 (4 years ago) Permalink
Haven't finished it yet, but I'm digging the Freud, psychiatry, and mental health in China article (subscription needed): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/10/110110fa_fact_osnos
― Mordy, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
The Patel story was amazing.
― dan selzer, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:28 (4 years ago) Permalink
yeah needs a good 3rd act tho.
― gr8080, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:34 (4 years ago) Permalink
he only contributed a couple of articles this year but i always enjoy atul gawande's stuff: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande is probably his best piece this year
― they fund ph.d studies, don't they? (Lamp), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:11 (4 years ago) Permalink
if anyone subscribes then feel free to webmail me the china/freud article kthx
― max bro'd (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
I would, but I can't figure out how to turn it into a pdf or another webmail suitable file.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:24 (4 years ago) Permalink
just copy and paste the text? or is it a different viewer thing.....no worries if that's the case
― max bro'd (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 00:27 (4 years ago) Permalink
the lehrer article is indeed pretty good and supplies ~evidence~ for my distrust of falsificationism and the inability of some ppl to think of scienctific 'knowledge' subjunctively, tho it does show science self-correcting so i don't read it as a total excoriation of the method
The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.
The recent one on the Vatican Library was pretty sweet: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/03/110103fa_fact_mendelsohn
I really like Toobin's diptych on JP Stevens and... the other guy.
nakhchivan, FYI, digital subscription gives you access to this weird applet-y, un-C&P text.
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:26 (4 years ago) Permalink
Oh, and that review of the new biography on Sergei Diaghilev was A+++++++ and really wish it was available to all humans: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/09/20/100920crbo_books_acocella
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:37 (4 years ago) Permalink
you can c+p articles from an library institutional subscription, but the evan osnos china thing is from the jan 10 issue which is not on the library wires yet. if you can't get it nakh, bump this thread in a week or two and i'm sure someone from what the fuck am i getting myself into with this grad school stuff will help you out.
― caek, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:46 (4 years ago) Permalink
Lamp, thanks for the Gawande link.
― Kip Squashbeef (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:54 (4 years ago) Permalink
ive been using a friends login for the subscriber stuff for a while and the interface is just so poor i dont usually bother to fuck w/it - seems theyd much rather you read the actual magazine - lol
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 02:09 (4 years ago) Permalink
^agreed. kind of why i started this thread so i knew which actual magazine to pick up and start reading.
― gr8080, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 02:13 (4 years ago) Permalink
p interesting follow-up of sorts on the recent duchenne muscular dystrophy activism article -- they just had a spot f/ clay matthews sponsored by cadillac during the orange bowl
― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 03:13 (4 years ago) Permalink
OK a TA I had in college had a poem published a few issues ago, woah.
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 05:57 (4 years ago) Permalink
the whole Jan. 11 issue is worth picking up, the aforementioned freud in china article is amazing and hilarious, and it also has decent articles about belgium and why stieg larsson is so fucking popular
― symsymsym, Monday, 10 January 2011 03:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
i know the concept of 'worth picking up' is still valid, even for subscribers, in translating to 'worth retrieving from the well-intentioned pile of unread NYers', BUT in general it's still worth remembering how insanely valuable subscribing to the magazine is when compared to buying a newsstand copy. like forty bucks, for a year, for it to be mailed to your house, which is the cost of like seven newsstand issues.
― schlump, Monday, 10 January 2011 11:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
what is the point of an article like this? - http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/01/17/110117ta_talk_surowiecki
surowiecki doesn't have a single interesting thing to say here
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 12:03 (4 years ago) Permalink
He's just summarizing the various memes on this now that are being mentioned in newspapers and blogs without asking anyone where things could go from here--what is the future for unionized government employees, will there ever be more unionized private sector employees, how would this help in regards to the inequality differences that have grown since union membership has declined...)
― curmudgeon, Monday, 10 January 2011 17:08 (4 years ago) Permalink
His column is like a monthly crib-sheet of conventional wisdom so you can sound like you know what you're talking about when you get invited to a garden party in Stonington
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
what is the point of an article like this?
to summarize and provide some context to a current event or idea its not really about 'saying interesting things' its just a primer? like i know being 1000x smarter than anyone else ever is your thing but i mean the section is called 'talk of the town' so yeah, it exists so the mag's readers can get a vague grip on an issue - the column (which john cassidy also writes some weeks) is supposed to be a gloss? & thats not really all that terrible???
― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:19 (4 years ago) Permalink
honestly tracer maybe u wld get more out of the articles u read if u didnt spend all ur energy snarkily coming up w/ reasons why u wld have done it better
― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:21 (4 years ago) Permalink
dude there are a zillion interesting things happening with unions at the moment (the biggest of which imo is the belated but hugely important efforts to hook up with undocumented immigrants). i'm not sorry for wanting more out of a column called "the financial page"! this article could have been written at any time in the last 15 years - there is zero content to it!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:37 (4 years ago) Permalink
i'll also admit that i am rankled by his terminology - "cadillac health plans" etc - and his conclusion that ultimately the reason that lots of people "resent" unions now is because unions have been successful at negotiating good contracts
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:39 (4 years ago) Permalink
like, if i want economist-lite i'll read newsweek
snark on that one for size
there is a cover story public sector unions in the economist this week. dunno why i'm bringing it up though because i haven't read it.
― caek, Monday, 10 January 2011 17:40 (4 years ago) Permalink
i'll be interested in reading that, in an "oppo research" kind of way.
i should probably just recuse myself from talking about surowiecki - everything about his steez rankles me and i'm finding it hard to put into words - the "primer" aspect is part of it, but there are people who write primer-type stuff who i love. i dunno!
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 17:44 (4 years ago) Permalink
yah i can see finding the article glib and too-neat "The Great Depression invigorated the modern American labor movement. The Great Recession has crippled it" both oversimplifies and maybe misses the point - i was just sort of baffled that you didnt seem to understand why an article like this gets written
― ⊚ ⓪ ㉧ ☉ ๏ ʘ ◉ ◎ ⓞ Ⓞ (Lamp), Monday, 10 January 2011 18:02 (4 years ago) Permalink
i guess i still don't! the avg new yorker reader could have dictated this article in their sleep 15 years ago
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 10 January 2011 18:08 (4 years ago) Permalink
so did anyone else read the all of the "20 under 40" pieces? thought it was pretty disappointing. vaguely remember liking one about a guy working on a boat in florida that catches on fire, but not much else.
― Moreno, Monday, 10 January 2011 19:04 (4 years ago) Permalink
― gr8080, Monday, 10 January 2011 21:33 (4 years ago) Permalink
The psychoanalysis in China article is kind of disappointing imo, mostly because it seems to say that it'll explain why a) psychoanalysis fell out of a favor in the US and most other Western nations, and b) why China then picked it up. The article gets at b) at a certain superficial level, but really doesn't go into a) (which I'm sure has been the subject of a lot of other articles, just would've liked discussion here). Anyway, one of my prof is mentioned in the article, easily the best part of it.
― nomar little (Leee), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:21 (4 years ago) Permalink
really tapping into the slang here
The teens were from a variety of backgrounds—public and private schools, Manhattan and the outer boroughs—and they wore jeans, collared shirts, and leather jackets. They seemed like normal teen-agers, although they all had the faintly glamorous, knowing aura of city kids. They were discussing slang expressions. “ ‘Calm your tits,’ ” Yasha, an eighteen-year-old from Crown Heights, said, citing an expression that means “Calm down.”
“ ‘Good looks,’ ” said Kyjah, a sixteen-year-old fencer from the Upper West Side, who was wearing lime-green nail polish.
“It means ‘Thanks for looking out,’ ” Alexandria, from Yonkers, said. “Somebody’s like, ‘Oh, you dropped money.’ ‘Oh, good looks.’ ”
“ ‘Gucci’ is the same as ‘Good money,’ ” Yasha said.
“You can say, ‘What’s Gucci?’ ” Kyjah said. “ ‘What’s up?’ ”
Matteo, a sixteen-year-old from Park Slope, said, “ ‘What’s poppin’?’ ”
The teens hesitated. “That’s, like, a retro saying.”
Yasha added, “It’s gang-related.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2011/01/10/110110ta_talk_widdicombe#ixzz1AgfxnnHS
― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 01:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
Does a print subscription also give access to the full digital edition + archives? Their website is suspiciously vague about that.
― earnest goes to camp, ironic goes to ilm (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
Yes it does - my international one does anyway.
― The baby boomers have defined everything once and for all (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:31 (4 years ago) Permalink
yes, you can look at literally every single page of every single issue going back to 1921 or something.
the applet viewer thing is kinda stupid, but functional
― gr8080, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:40 (4 years ago) Permalink
the david brooks article is so terrible i cant remember the last time i read something that managed to be so offensive w/o actually saying or meaning anything
― Lamp, Friday, 14 January 2011 17:09 (4 years ago) Permalink
Yes, that was ugh.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:09 (4 years ago) Permalink
i am considering writing a disappointed email, is how disappointed i am, right now
I know right! I couldn't even get through it.
I did enjoy the unintentional irony of describing what would commonly be thought of as "people skills" or "intuition" or "emotional intelligence" in ridiculously labored and aspergerian terms.
― hey boys, suppers on me, our video just went bacterial (Hurting 2), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
― nomar little (Leee), Monday, January 10, 2011 7:21 PM Bookmark
Agree with this. Started to raise some interesting implications about what psychoanalysis could mean for China as well, but then wastes way too much ink on here-and-now descriptions of various conferences and meetings, which new yorker writers love to bore us with.
― hey boys, suppers on me, our video just went bacterial (Hurting 2), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:17 (4 years ago) Permalink
freud/china piece nakh http://pastie.org/1460821
― caek, Friday, 14 January 2011 17:59 (4 years ago) Permalink
The David Brooks article was so poor that I kept double checking to see if it was in fact fiction and supposed to be ironic. Or, failing that, if it was nonfiction and supposed to be a parody.
― Virginia Plain, Friday, 14 January 2011 18:19 (4 years ago) Permalink
I knew the Brooks article would settle the argument.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 18:28 (4 years ago) Permalink
I had trouble just imagining people named Harold and Erica being the same age.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2011 18:30 (4 years ago) Permalink
That's the cartoon! I did not get "sperm" from the drawing; spouse looked at it, thought it was a snake, and figured that it was "about how usually a snake just swallows an egg whole, and this one is getting inside to eat it."
― mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Friday, 25 September 2015 12:10 (1 week ago) Permalink
cool, a feature on grimes!! *reads*
"Should my d.j. set be more chill?" Boucher wondered, not for the first time. ("Chill," One of her favorite adjectives, can mean "mellow" or "good" or, most often, both.)
― 1997 ball boy (Karl Malone), Saturday, 26 September 2015 15:31 (1 week ago) Permalink
wait, bad as in good or bad as in bad? i can't tell what the kids are saying these days
"And to 'shake your booty' means to wiggle one's butt. Permit me to demonstrate..."
― The New Gay Sadness (cryptosicko), Saturday, 26 September 2015 15:37 (1 week ago) Permalink
(somewhere in page 4..)
"On the train, Boucher had seemed excited about her d.j. set, but by the time she and Brooks boarded the aircraft carrier she had started to feel distinctly un-chill."
*thumbs back a few pages to get a refresher on 'chill' definition*
― 1997 ball boy (Karl Malone), Saturday, 26 September 2015 15:40 (1 week ago) Permalink
the lockerbie story is really good
― J0rdan S., Saturday, 26 September 2015 17:35 (1 week ago) Permalink
lol @ mailman
― balls, Saturday, 26 September 2015 23:37 (1 week ago) Permalink
Interesting profile of Kenneth Goldsmith and the controversy around making a long poem from Michael Brown's autopsy report:
― ... (Eazy), Monday, 28 September 2015 14:14 (1 week ago) Permalink
poets of FB very angry that Goldsmith got a NYer piece
― Why because she True and Interesting (President Keyes), Monday, 28 September 2015 14:21 (1 week ago) Permalink
everyone hates kenneth goldsmith.
i thought the new yorker profile was really good, and certainly provides a lot more context to what happened with the performance of the michael brown piece then almost anything else i read about it at the time.
he does himself zero favors by being the kind of person who says and does things like this:
Goldsmith was born in Freeport, Long Island, in 1961. His high-school enthusiasms were drugs and art. “I took my S.A.T.s on acid,” he said. “I’d already deconstructed and critiqued the culture, so I knew I wasn’t going to go down any normal path where the world of S.A.T.s meant anything to me.” He went to the Rhode Island School of Design, where he met his wife, the artist Cheryl Donegan. On their first date, he took her at four in the morning to an all-night supermarket in a small town in Rhode Island, where he interrogated people about what they had in their carts and why they were in the supermarket at that hour.
*collective massive eyeroll at the life and times of goldsmith*
he clearly fucked up. i think it's easy in the conceptual art zone to discount boundaries. for some artists, a major driver of their work is figuring out what happens when you start with an objective of eliminating boundaries and seeing how things hold up. but there are boundaries in the real world and goldsmith was completely out of touch and clueless. and his behavior afterward was shitty - iirc he sort of apologized but then didn't, then doubled down on his actions as #freespeech on twitter.
the most damning thing was that he broke away from his own method of pure appropriation by changing the structure of the autopsy report to feature the description of brown's genitalia as the closing line. his only line of defense was his strict adherence to the concept. without it, the criticism that he was effectively exploiting a black man's tragedy for his own personal gain is convincing. maybe that wasn't his goal, but that was the result.
but i do think the whole thing raises old (but interesting) issues regarding offense and art.
Some people wondered whether the reading might have been received differently if Goldsmith had explained his intentions. If he had “prefaced the work calling it a piece of protest poetry (or something) I am pretty certain the work would have been considered a triumph,” Rin Johnson wrote to me.
Rin Johnson was the person in the crowd who had the courage to challenge Goldsmith in person at the end of the reading. so the criticism for Johnson, at least, is not that the work was inherently racist but that she needed context. But Goldsmith - like many other conceptual artists - believed the work should stand on its own, without explanation (and i think that's generally valid. it's not the duty of the artist to explain to people how to feel about something). so where does that leave us? i don't know, the first thing that comes to mind are "consider your audience when making work that could be considered to be offensive" but that obviously raises impossible questions, like Who is deciding what's offensive and which audiences and how do you decide when a line has been crossed, etc. but of course, it's easy to defend the right to offend when most of the people doing the offending are wealthy white people. the power to offend (self-righteously, no less) is a power that most people don't have. but if certain works (like this one) require an explanation...which works? how do you decide?
tl;dr goldsmith fucked up, but i don't think it's nearly so cut and dry as it was made out to be.
― 1997 ball boy (Karl Malone), Monday, 28 September 2015 16:55 (1 week ago) Permalink
The story has this intersection of WFMU performance/Neil-Hamburger-pranksterism crossed with academia crossed with activism crossed with a guy who plays up "lol white guy" in a trickster way in a world of "lol white guy poets."
I missed this whole controversy until this article, but after reading it last night watched his Colbert interview and listened to this radio interview, the last 5 minutes of which is especially good at contextualizing the reading and where it went wrong (short version: "too soon").
― ... (Eazy), Monday, 28 September 2015 17:54 (1 week ago) Permalink
The pretty short part of the article about the controversy made it sound as though Goldsmith's attackers were either confused, opportunistically missing-the-point or just unhinged ("I hope he does not survive this." "We know you want to kill Goldsmith")
I guess this article also explains why I see so much hate for Marjorie Perloff online.
― Why because she True and Interesting (President Keyes), Monday, 28 September 2015 18:39 (1 week ago) Permalink
given that Goldsmith is a NYer contributor so they may have reason to take his side
― Why because she True and Interesting (President Keyes), Monday, 28 September 2015 18:44 (1 week ago) Permalink
There's a New Movement in American Poetry and It's Not Kenneth Goldsmith
...The more interesting, relevant, and current story is that the poetry world has been riven by a crisis where the old guard—epitomized by Goldsmith—has collapsed. I thought it was essential to contextualize Goldsmith’s scandal within a new movement in American poetry, a movement galvanized by the activism of Black Lives Matter, spearheaded by writers of color who are at home in social media activism and print magazines; some poets are redefining the avant-garde while others are fueling a raw politics into the personal lyric. Their aesthetic may be divergent, but they share a common belief that as poets, they must engage in social practice, whether it is protesting against police brutality or calling out Goldsmith himself who thought it would be a “provocative gesture” to recite an autopsy report of Michael Brown’s body at Brown University.
Of course, it became clear to me in the interview that Wilkinson didn’t want to write about that. His take on Goldsmith was that his Conceptual Poetry represented a new “revolutionary poetry movement,” as he put it in his published piece. But Conceptual Poetry is already dead, I told him. And to write about the scandal, one had to consider the racial unrests that have swept up America and invaded the arts. Poets are challenging the structural inequities within literature. The pushback against Goldsmith was symptomatic of this broader crisis and he did not create this maelstrom.
In fact, even before the performance, Goldsmith’s “brand” was in trouble. His PoMo for Dummies “no history because of the internet” declarations became absurdly irrelevant when black men were dying at the hands of cops. Goldsmith, who previously exhibited zero interest in race, saw that racism was a trending topic and decided to exploit it to foist himself back in the center and people roared back in response. Goldsmith, I kept saying, is one factor to this turbulent rift in the cultural landscape. Writers of color are not bit players in this man’s drama. Don’t whitewash this story, I urged him.
Wilkinson distilled my long interview down to two quotes:
“I am hoping that there has been enough anger that he won’t survive,” Cathy Park Hong, at Sarah Lawrence, told me. “Maybe he really did mean to be sympathetic, who knows. Two, three years ago, it would have been ‘That’s Kenny being Kenny,’ but in this racial climate you don’t get away with it.”This is how he framed my views:
“He’s received more attention lately than any other living poet,” Cathy Park Hong, a poet and professor at Sarah Lawrence, told me resentfully. (Italics mine.)
― 1997 ball boy (Karl Malone), Thursday, 1 October 2015 19:58 (4 days ago) Permalink
i actually dearly love poetry but there is little more embarrassing than academic poetry being written about in a way that flatters its pretensions to have any political relevance whatsoever
― wizzz! (amateurist), Thursday, 1 October 2015 20:01 (4 days ago) Permalink
and this whole tempest in a teapot is definitely one of those "lock these folks in a room together and toss away the key" affairs
― wizzz! (amateurist), Thursday, 1 October 2015 20:02 (4 days ago) Permalink
I made my points calmly, but translated in print, I become resentful (or whiny or hostile or, if I raise my voice slightly, hysterical). Wilkinson discredits my lucid points about institutional inequality by characterizing me as envious of the attention Goldsmith received. Envy is an emotion that is—according to the scholar Sianne Ngai, in her book Ugly Feelings—“unjustified, frustrated, and effete,” a “private dissatisfaction” or “psychological flaw.”
is resentfully/resentment generally seen as a loaded phrase? I guess 'envious' does seem dismissive, boiling down someone's objections to a personal rather than political issue, but resentful doesn't seem to be an exact synonym? but Hong does seem to resent the attention Goldsmith has received over this (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, I can see why resentment would be justified), that is whole thrust of article, isn't it? what would be a better way for the NYer have put that?
― soref, Thursday, 1 October 2015 21:14 (4 days ago) Permalink
i haven't read the nyer thing yet, have only skimmed parts like kg saying that the deep feels of an artist are worth the drowning of one thousand children, but
this is super otm & worse is understated; he also made plain the language of the piece, iirc, like didn't read the text of the report as written, its medical vernacular, but broke it into plain english; beyond everything else this feels aesthetically inferior, to me, like the point of language is its technicality, but it's also just another blunt, shapeless, lazy face of his dull appropriation act. i used to be such a booster for kg because he's ubuweb but it's such offensive, boring, faux-boho garbage i think. the most valuable act of appropriation he could perform is restoring the text of cassandra gillig's twitter account which was deleted either on his account or else generally under his terrible trailing cloak. fuck kenny g imo.
― crime breeze (schlump), Friday, 2 October 2015 04:16 (3 days ago) Permalink
is this the woman who was tweeting that she hoped Goldsmith was murdered?
― soref, Friday, 2 October 2015 10:10 (3 days ago) Permalink
― crime breeze (schlump), Saturday, 3 October 2015 04:19 (2 days ago) Permalink
insight into the mind of a killer
― crime breeze (schlump), Saturday, 3 October 2015 04:21 (2 days ago) Permalink
"favourites" what is this canadian twitter
― go hang a salami I'm a canal, adam (silby), Saturday, 3 October 2015 04:36 (2 days ago) Permalink