it's not a race
― Mr. Que, Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:24 (twelve years ago) link
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
― joaquin haus-partizan (s1ocki), Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:26 (twelve years ago) link
great responses to my entirely serious post, guys
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:26 (twelve years ago) link
very prompt and pertinent
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:27 (twelve years ago) link
don't blame the audience
― joaquin haus-partizan (s1ocki), Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:29 (twelve years ago) link
im with you nick
― max, Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:29 (twelve years ago) link
great jokes everyone
― Mr. Que, Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:29 (twelve years ago) link
if you have unread back issues of the new yorker around your house, you should be sterilized so that you can never reproduce
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:31 (twelve years ago) link
then start a sterilization thread
― joaquin haus-partizan (s1ocki), Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:33 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:40 (twelve years ago) link
can't believe people don't use their lunch hour to read Malcolm Gladwell articles.
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:46 (twelve years ago) link
I have him on 'ignore' just like Gopnick.
― Lewis Apparition (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:55 (twelve years ago) link
^^^
― Mr. Que, Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:58 (twelve years ago) link
who gets an hour for lunch!
― k3vin k., Thursday, 2 August 2012 19:13 (twelve years ago) link
plenty of ppl
― johnny crunch, Thursday, 2 August 2012 19:18 (twelve years ago) link
if you don't get an hour for lunch, you should not be reading the new yorker because you are obv a pleb
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 2 August 2012 19:31 (twelve years ago) link
ha
― k3vin k., Thursday, 2 August 2012 19:32 (twelve years ago) link
my lunch break isnt a set amount of time its just however long it takes to finish three martinis and one new yorker article
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 August 2012 19:36 (twelve years ago) link
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
― what makes you think its a pun (Lamp), Thursday, 2 August 2012 21:30 (twelve years ago) link
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
― what makes you think its a pun (Lamp), Thursday, 2 August 2012 21:31 (twelve years ago) link
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
― lag∞n, Thursday, 2 August 2012 23:00 (twelve years ago) link
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
― k3vin k., Friday, 3 August 2012 00:14 (twelve years ago) link
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
― balls, Monday, 6 August 2012 01:56 (twelve years ago) link
you guys
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 6 August 2012 13:47 (twelve years ago) link
this week's issue has a "personal history" piece by lena dunham
about being blocked on facebook by her ex-boyfriend's mom
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 6 August 2012 13:48 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Monday, 6 August 2012 14:07 (twelve years ago) link
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 6 August 2012 14:47 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is wonderrrrful
― , Blogger (schlump), Monday, 6 August 2012 15:22 (twelve years ago) link
in the louis sense?felt like an extended blog to me
― I dont even know that I think this sucks per se (forksclovetofu), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:05 (twelve years ago) link
Well, now we know the inspiration for Elijah in Girls.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:09 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:12 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/08/chick-fil-a-introduces-new-hate-sauce.html
;_;
― Author ~ Coach ~ Goddess (s1ocki), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:13 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.newyorker.com/images/permanent/p290/perm_w-andy-borowitz_p290.jpg
― I dont even know that I think this sucks per se (forksclovetofu), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:19 (twelve years ago) link
and i thought it was pretty cringeworthy and very out of context in the new yorker.
More so than the two excerpts from Bossypants?
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:23 (twelve years ago) link
Actually yes.
― I dont even know that I think this sucks per se (forksclovetofu), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:33 (twelve years ago) link
definitely more cringeworthy
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:34 (twelve years ago) link
Oh, I read the Dunham piece this morning, I just don't know that I agree.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:35 (twelve years ago) link
I thought those excerpts of Bossypants were pretty funny.
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 16:36 (twelve years ago) link
YMMV re cringeworthiness, but I don't think it was any more "out of context in the New Yorker" than the Bossypants stuff.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:37 (twelve years ago) link
and not really out of context?
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 16:37 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 16:38 (twelve years ago) link
i'll even put up with Rin Tin Tin articles
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 16:39 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:40 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:43 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 16:45 (twelve years ago) link
OK.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:46 (twelve years ago) link
this post is kinda SPOILERY- which is to say that i think the article's really good & that scanning it might sorta foreshadow some of its finer bon mots:
i thought it was really moving! i guess we could have a girls-thread style interrogation into to what degree something is maybe only rewarding if particularly familiar, ie if you are eligible for it, but i found it very affecting (& new yorker-ish in tone, really, re: n/a's comment, ie have your cake and tweet it too). stupid happy, the line about rolled-up sleeves, reading enough of a thing only to determine that its author was smart, capturing the minutiae of parner's-watchful-parents dynamics (she noticed that i pick all the carrots out of my stir fry); i was entertained. it mightn't have fit in w/the magazine more generally, in the sense that it says fucking and dick-slapped in the first graf, but it seems so redolent of those tenderly-handled, semi-wistful memories you have of early romance, to me, part aware of its naivete but super evocative of its rapture - "i would watch his strong back as he rose from bed to get a mason jar of water and think, That's mine".
i thought the bossypants extracts were good also so ymmv
― , Blogger (schlump), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:46 (twelve years ago) link