New Yorker magazine alert thread

mindy kaling, whoever you are, your "imagined invention" article titled "Leaning In" is an abomination. in your first paragraph, you mention that you play a character named Dr. Mindy Lahiri, so i can only assume that whatever television show or whatever you appear in is also terrible, and i feel sorry for the cast and crew that surrounds you. the completely unnecessary paragraphs that go on a deeply unfunny journey into the hypothetical 'albert-einstein-photo-guy-you-slept-with' scenario are somehow exhausting even though they take up no more than one column of space. the Kiss Monitor(tm) idea is not funny at all. even the illustration is stupid. go to hell mindy kaling, whoever you are, go to hell.

Her sitcom is pretty good.

is there a new one this week? i didn't get one. huh.

xpost oh, she was Kelly on the Office! hmph. well, i've never heard anyone say they like the office before, that's for sure. pretty obscure show imo

didn't she also do some terrible social-media-inflected reality show

guys don't panic, i got the new issue to download, just had to restart my kindle

oh thank god thank god

n/a I have to thank you for holding my hand through my NYer kindle edition transition. I end up reading a lot more of each issue now, for some reason.

no prob bob

i never got the ilx love for mindy kaling

she's a funny and talented woman iirc

she wrote lots of offices back when it was good and was a standout character -- what's not to get

disagree with your first two assertions. and the last.

you disagree that she wrote lots of offices?

1 - funny
2 - talented
3 - wrote lots of offices back when it was good (even here i'm a lil shaky)
4 - standout character

you forgot 2.5 - woman

guess what there's already a whole thread for everyone's amazing mindy kaling opinions: C/D MINDY KALING (THE DEFINITIVE POLL)

she wrote a bunch of offices in season 2, 3, 4 -- there is no denying that that was "when it was good" and therefore there is no denying she is funny and talented QED

n/a: i know! that's why i said it's an ilx OPINIONtm
i'm okay with "when it was good" more than when it was good

therefore there is no denying she is funny and talented QED

i must offer up this evidence in opposition:

Let me pain a pretty typical picture of the last person you made love to. Lying in bed afterward, you get to chatting. It is very nice at first; both of you use low bedroom voices and have mussed-up hair. Then he mentions off-handedly that his favorite photograph of all time is the one of Albert Einstein sticking his tongue out. You laugh, thinking it is a joke.
"What? Of all photographs, of all time?"
"Yes."
You sit up in bed.
"More than the protester in Tiananmen Square in front of the tanks? Or the National Geographic girl with the crazy penetrating eyes?"
"Yes, more than those photos."
"Why? Why on earth?"
"It makes me feel like even though Albert Einstein was a big shot, he didn't take himself so seriously. It's like he's a genius but also chill. You know, work hard, play hard?"
I'm of the mind that Albert Einstein was fine taking himself seriously. Not everyone needs to be an entertainer. (That's why I hate it when President Obama goes on talk shows too much.) Anyway, if it had just been a kiss, you never would have had to hear this stupid opinion. You would shudder remembering "the Albert Einstein-photo guy you slept with." You would still smile, thinking back wistfully to the "nice-smelling guy you smooched during intermission at 'The Book of Mormon.'"

I think LD already proved that not everyone who creates buzzed about tv shows is necessarily going to be good at writing NYer articles

she just kind of falls flat when she's writing/on talk shows/basically anything where she doesn't have a bigger cast to support her?

Read the article about Elmhurst Hospital in New York, and by the end I felt it was about three or four different subjects, none of which were quite written about to fruition. Frustrating.

Yeah, i got the sense it was a promise the author made to herself more than an essay

I think LD already proved that not everyone who creates buzzed about tv shows is necessarily going to be good at writing NYer articles

― mimicking regular benevloent (sic) users' names (President Keyes), Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:18 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

i liked her dog article!

woody allen and steve martin proved that about tv writers well before dunham, odenkirk, and kaling got in the game

I actually liked most of the Style issue--Dapper Dan, the crazy billionaire aussie lady, the punk fashion article had some Richard Hell stuff, even the Lena Dunham, though way beneath NYer's standards, did have a circle of puppies sucking each other's dicks.

― gentle german fatherly voice (President Keyes), Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:50 PM (1 month ago)

the Kaling piece better have a cat orgy

woody allen and steve martin proved that about tv writers well before dunham, odenkirk, and kaling got in the game

― balls, Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:07 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark'

woody allen wrote some amazingly hilarious stuff for the nyer back in the day

was gonna say. martin wasn't too shabby either... and labeling either of them as "tv writers" suggests that those balls are surrounded by a touch of grey

oh god forks

I was pretty neutral on Mindy Kaling before reading her NYer piece. Normally I would feel like "hey, kudos, it must be pretty cool to be published in the NYer!" But mostly I feel embarrassed for her. Like this is something she is going to regret in the morning.

Because it is really bad.

tbf the margaret atwood inventions piece is shitty too and she's margaret atwood

i think the concept for those pieces was just bad overall

i will get by

Cyber espionage piece is A+, if not something I should be reading first thing in the morning.

"We're completely fucked."

a lot of times people who do good work try something a lil out of their wheelhouse and maybe dont care so much and it comes out bad

anyone ever read David Mamet on politics and life my god

Cyber espionage piece is A+, if not something I should be reading first thing in the morning.

― Beatrix Kiddo (Raymond Cummings), Friday, May 17, 2013 5:56 AM (3 hours ago)

is this in the newest one?

yerp

Looking forward to getting my hopes up and ultimately quashed with the fungus plastic and the renewable turbine energy articles.

i noticed two different articles commented on the number of piercings the person being profiled has

Finally got an ipad subscription after usually buying loose issues. Will start with the cyber crime one first (in the evening)

for what it's worth i think the mobile experience is going to drastically improve soon - i interviewed for a mobile app developer job at the nyer a couple months ago and some of the stuff in the pipeline is pretty cool. for one thing, they're moving the ipad version from adobe's proprietary platform to html5 - aka the reason it's normally about six times the filesize of the iphone version. it sounds like conde nast is finally investing pretty heavily in .com and the mobile division, which is long overdue imo

good to hear

Oh wow that is good to hear! I understand now why a single issue is 200+ mb, which is... steep. Five issues are 1gb. With my 16gb ipad that can become a problem quite soon.

The app itself is very clear and reader-friendly, but it's also clunky, and not very intuitive. For one, you can't even pinch and zoom in on the text (not that's not big enough, but I like adjusting it to how I want it to be).

Looking forward to the update.

hey so i'm totally about to board this plane. should be p cool. see u later

haha wrong thread

Haha, order your subscription NOW arby's!