New Yorker magazine alert thread

people who can't stay on top of their new yorker shit should be banned from this thread imo. put up or shut up.

it's not a race

it's a weekly magazine

isnt the whole point of this thread to alert ppl who can't keep up to interesting new articles?

start your own thread

great responses to my entirely serious post, guys

very prompt and pertinent

don't blame the audience

im with you nick

great jokes everyone

if you have unread back issues of the new yorker around your house, you should be sterilized so that you can never reproduce

then start a sterilization thread

I think I keep up pretty well. By the time a new issue arrives, there might be an unread article or two from the previous issue that I meant to get to, but I've usually already read the ones I was most interested in. So typically, I just move on.

can't believe people don't use their lunch hour to read Malcolm Gladwell articles.

I have him on 'ignore' just like Gopnick.

^^^

who gets an hour for lunch!

plenty of ppl

if you don't get an hour for lunch, you should not be reading the new yorker because you are obv a pleb

ha

my lunch break isnt a set amount of time its just however long it takes to finish three martinis and one new yorker article

i thought it was an interesting, entertaining read but was not very satisfying. i wish they had 100 percent nailed the guy on his cheating before writing an article about it. i'm sure he was cheating and it felt like there was a lot of evidence against him but not like one solid devastating beyond-a-doubt piece of proof. it was annoying at the end when he was like "and we never figured out exactly how he was cheating, oh well.

yeah, i thought the whole thing lacked the distance and insight that would have made it interesting and so it just ended up being a fairly creepy summary of a popular message board thread, which was weird. like it felt like the dude writing the piece was too aggressive or maybe just too involved w/ the whole thing and he didnt really have much to offer except the (disputed) facts? idk i was hoping it would be really cool and instead it just ended w/ a shrug and some accusations

also going back a bit the nussbaum piece on cliffhangers was horrible and made me really miss nancy franklin who at least had the virtue of being idiosyncratic

not that there was any definitive proof but the theory of riding a bike/wearing indistinct clothes over his race gear seemed p otm, that the heart of the article was one of those investigative message board threads was a lol for sure

just ended up being a fairly creepy summary of a popular message board thread, which was weird.

this basically. not that i didn't read it through, i post on a message board too

the writer did call one of the posters a "blogger" tho, lol

man that forensic linguistics piece a couple of weeks back had been nagging at me - interesting read and it seems plausibly sound as a detective technique but as science or something to be treated as science by the courts and presented as such to juries it seems very flimsy, way beyond forensic accounting even which strikes me as too flimsy also at least in a cut and dried guilty/not guilty kind of evidence like fingerprints or dna. anyhow read this again by chance last week and kind of cemented my suspicion: http://www.texasmonthly.com/cms/printthis.php?file=feature2.php&issue=2010-05-01

you guys

this week's issue has a "personal history" piece by lena dunham

about being blocked on facebook by her ex-boyfriend's mom

it's extremely quotable

Just read Ryan Lizza's Paul Ryan article, pretty useless boilerplate bio stuff. Talks a lot about him as the new intellectual core of the GOP, but barely talks about or analyzes his actual ideas. There's some gestures toward the end, that basically all this Randian stuff is a crock, but pretty lightweight.

this week's issue has a "personal history" piece by lena dunham

― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 6 August 2012 14:47 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is wonderrrrful

in the louis sense?
felt like an extended blog to me

Well, now we know the inspiration for Elijah in Girls.

i know very little about dunham, have never watched girls or tiny furniture, and i thought it was pretty cringeworthy and very out of context in the new yorker. but most of the personal histories are dumb.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/08/chick-fil-a-introduces-new-hate-sauce.html

;_;

http://www.newyorker.com/images/permanent/p290/perm_w-andy-borowitz_p290.jpg

and i thought it was pretty cringeworthy and very out of context in the new yorker.

More so than the two excerpts from Bossypants?

Actually yes.

definitely more cringeworthy

Oh, I read the Dunham piece this morning, I just don't know that I agree.

I thought those excerpts of Bossypants were pretty funny.

YMMV re cringeworthiness, but I don't think it was any more "out of context in the New Yorker" than the Bossypants stuff.

and not really out of context?

I thought those excerpts of Bossypants were pretty funny.

Me too!

they run show biz stuff, profiles and such all the time, the show she works on takes place in New York, it's shot in New York. . . seems like a good fit.

i guess i think the new yorker can run an article on just about anything they want. i can't imagine something would feel out of context to me.

i'll even put up with Rin Tin Tin articles

Yeah, I feel like I am not being very articulate: I liked both the Fey and the Dunham. Both did feel a little "out of context," but the Dunham no more so than the Fey, and I'm not terribly bothered by it, anyway.

By "out of context," I guess I mean that both Fey and Dunham's pieces were in a style that was kind of offhand/casual/jokey, very digestible. "Bloggy," I guess. The kind of voice that wouldn't be out of place in a Shouts & Murmurs piece, but not in a Personal History written by a staffer like Jane Kramer.

were in a style that was kind of offhand/casual/jokey, very digestible. "Bloggy," I guess.

LOL

INTERVIEWER

Were you employed by The New Yorker because you were funny . . . they’d seen funny pieces?

TRILLIN

The first one I wrote was about the integration of the University of Georgia, a fairly serious piece. The first pieces I did were all fairly straight, I think partly because I hadn’t really figured out what I sounded like. Then I started writing a series of pieces that were all about the same guy, Barnett Frummer who had a girlfriend named Rosalie Mondle he was trying to impress. Each one was about a different kind of trendiness. At one point she became a radical; he tried to be radical. She got interested in gourmet cooking; he tried to do the same. These were what The New Yorker called casuals—short pieces that were signed. At the time, they had a special deal on them, like a cut-rate special in the fiction department: if you sold six of them in one year, something wonderful happened to you. It was sort of like hitting the pinball machine in “The Time of Your Life”—flags went off, you got a lot of money, piano lessons for a year, a new pair of shoes, all that stuff. So I wrote these really sporadically at The New Yorker.

OK.