^ totally recommend that
― markers, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah i read that one the other day, great stuff
― ciderpress, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:16 (5 years ago) Permalink
it was interesting, lol scientists
― ice cr?m, Monday, 3 January 2011 17:20 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
The Patel story was amazing.
― dan selzer, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah needs a good 3rd act tho.
― gr8080, Monday, 3 January 2011 21:34 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
Lamp, thanks for the Gawande link.
― Kip Squashbeef (pixel farmer), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 01:54 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
― gr8080, Monday, 10 January 2011 21:33 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
Yes, that was ugh.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2011 17:09 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
freud/china piece nakh http://pastie.org/1460821
― caek, Friday, 14 January 2011 17:59 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
I knew the Brooks article would settle the argument.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 14 January 2011 18:28 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
hate when writers do that shit
― de l'asshole (flopson), Monday, 18 April 2016 21:48 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
I'd be happy if they banned first person, but hey, that's what people seem to like.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 18 April 2016 21:50 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Nussbaum is pretty good (especially about stuff she likes) but Pulitzer-good? She's probably just the best in a very bland, groupthink-y field. Also points off for the "last episode was Walter's hallucination" theory.
― Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 18 April 2016 21:55 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Generally I've wasted too much of my life reading recaps, I don't think there's a solid writer or thinker in the lot, but they're such easy procrastination material.
― Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 18 April 2016 21:58 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
yeah i dunno if it's possible to be pulitzer-worthy writing about the arts. tho i dunno, is the pulitzer even respected? some crappy things have won pulitzers.
xpost pulitzer for ask a maester
― japanese mage (LocalGarda), Monday, 18 April 2016 22:00 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
I think the avclub TV writing is miles better than Nussbaum's, more perceptive, more invested. Every once in a while she makes a good observation, but much of her criticism seems very ... reactive? Like, maybe she'll wait a season or two in until she addresses something. Or several episodes, and tie it into a think-piece
this is what criticism is
― k3vin k., Monday, 18 April 2016 22:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
yeah, i think you guys are overrating the pulitzers. I don't even mean that as a shot against nussbaum, just that the pulitzers for criticism and for commentary often go to stuff that's not that great.
― intheblanks, Monday, 18 April 2016 22:03 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
i don't read nussbaum or any TV writing but there is more to criticism than insta-reactions. tying smaller things into a larger narrative is i would say the very fabric of the american essay
― k3vin k., Monday, 18 April 2016 22:03 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
did you guys read dying clive james on game of thrones?
― scott seward, Monday, 18 April 2016 22:19 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
― scott seward, Monday, 18 April 2016 22:20 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Todd Van Der werff? That dude has an uncanny knack for finding parallels to his own life story in every episode of tv in existence.
― JoeStork, Monday, April 18, 2016 10:46 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark
At one of the lowest points in my marriage, my wife and I got into a massive, horrific argument in the very early hours of the morning. It was the kind of argument that breaks marriages, that wakes neighbors, that reveals things that should have been left unsaid, and at one point, I remember her cowering in our bathroom over some revelation or another meant to hurt me, and I remember planting my arms in the bathroom door so I blocked it like a giant oak tree, branches not permitting her exit. She stood up, begged me to move. I said no. She shoved me, trying to jar me, so she could leave the apartment and the argument far behind. It was no use. I don’t remember what it was that she said to so set me off, nor do I remember most of the beats of the argument. But I remember standing in that doorway and feeling gigantic, like she was no match for me, a mouse against an elephant. I remember what it was to feel that terrifying power surge through me. And I remember how much I wanted to hit her but did not. It took a long while of her crying herself hoarse, but I stepped away, and she left. We both did and said things we regret that night, but I have regretted none so much as meeting a person inside of me wild and uncontrolled enough to do something like that to the woman he loved.
― Number None, Monday, 18 April 2016 22:23 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
― J0rdan S., Monday, 18 April 2016 22:25 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Youch. Maybe I was thinking of someone else? Anyway, all writers suck, sometimes.
I thought that GoT piece was pretty good, actually.
xpost Sure. But I don't think she writes about shows down the line any differently than she might write about a new show. She doesn't, imo, bring anything new, given the benefit of time spent vs. rushing out a review based on a pilot or the first few eps, and rather than advancing a stance or theory many of her pieces are still basically on the level of recap/description/comparing shows to other shows. (Though she seems to be doing less of the last, thankfully).
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 18 April 2016 22:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Anyway, re: AVclub, whoever is doing their Better Call Saul writing these days has been great.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 18 April 2016 22:33 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 18 April 2016 22:34 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Nussbaum is the best because she:
- brings attention to overlooked and underhyped woman-led shows- is super Jewish- has made fun of Phillip Roth- likes things to be fun
― eyecrud (silby), Monday, 18 April 2016 22:37 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
I agree on the first, for sure! That's part and parcel with being a populist, I suppose. Write about the shows people are actually watching rather than patronizingly write about shows people should be watching because blah blah.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 18 April 2016 22:39 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
jesus christ - what was the writer quoted above reviewing when he included that crazy part?
i thought the clive james got piece was only okay to be honest. the bits about tyrion were good but the rest was a bit of a disjointed scrawl. and much of it was like hearing about a tv show i'd already seen through the medium of the videogame manual: "and then there is sansa. the wily daughter of ned stark, she has adventures with the conniving littlefinger, who knows what is next in store for them?"
"cersei is the queen of the realm, between religion and incest, her hands are certainly full! but is there more than meets the eye?"
― japanese mage (LocalGarda), Monday, 18 April 2016 22:40 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
it's from a Louie recap
― Number None, Monday, 18 April 2016 22:40 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
lmao that avclub quote
― de l'asshole (flopson), Monday, 18 April 2016 22:44 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Silby OTM re: fun, women shows, Jewishness
― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 09:30 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
The Melania Trump article this week seems weird. There was interesting stuff in there but it was so vicious and nasty that it seemed tonally off from the New Yorker style. And I don't know that "Trump hates immigrants, but his wife is an immigrant" really works as a Trump gotcha at this point.
― Immediate Follower (NA), Wednesday, 4 May 2016 14:31 (2 days ago) Permalink