It's online here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/17/140217fa_fact_angell
― o. nate, Thursday, 20 February 2014 19:11 (ten years ago) link
True rationalists are as rare in life as actual deconstructionists are in university English departments, or true bisexuals in gay bars.
fuckin gopnik
― mookieproof, Friday, 21 February 2014 00:53 (ten years ago) link
surprised that made it through fact checking
― resulting post (rogermexico.), Friday, 21 February 2014 01:22 (ten years ago) link
gopniiiiiiik *shakes fist at nyer app*
― lag∞n, Monday, 24 February 2014 13:02 (ten years ago) link
Gopnik wrote the article as if trying to impress disillusioned McSweeney's readers.
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 24 February 2014 13:03 (ten years ago) link
is it played to complain about how shitty borowitz is
― goole, Thursday, 27 February 2014 17:32 (ten years ago) link
i mean, fuck
I've got a teaching colleague who posts Borowitz garbage on Facebook every day
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 February 2014 17:32 (ten years ago) link
are you implying there are people somewhere on facebook who don't post borowitz garbage every day?
― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 27 February 2014 17:38 (ten years ago) link
I deny the existence of people who write "Essential reading!!" on a Borowitz garbage post.
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 27 February 2014 17:39 (ten years ago) link
how about peolpe who write "haha" or "totally true" on a garbage borowitz post?
― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 27 February 2014 17:41 (ten years ago) link
The top two slots on the "most popular" list are Borowitz yet again. Do you think the Gopniks and the Hertzbergs really hate him for that? I would.
― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Thursday, 27 February 2014 17:45 (ten years ago) link
i am at peace with max's justification of borowitz's existence, which is essentially that he brings the NYer a lot of clicks so they can keep paying people to write cool stuff
― k3vin k., Thursday, 27 February 2014 18:27 (ten years ago) link
it is the search for the justification of those clicks that keeps us awake though
― mustread guy (schlump), Thursday, 27 February 2014 21:44 (ten years ago) link
what is up with the pluralization of 'SATs'
it's not even consistent
― mookieproof, Friday, 28 February 2014 00:22 (ten years ago) link
the borowitz report is a million times better than letting gopnik right about books
― Lamp, Friday, 28 February 2014 04:45 (ten years ago) link
― mookieproof, Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:22 PM (Yesterday)
huh?
― k3vin k., Friday, 28 February 2014 15:53 (ten years ago) link
Taking the SATs is not something to do lightly.The last time I took the SATs, there was no essay.she determined to take the SAT each of the seven times it was offered in the course of the calendar yearStier’s only experience with the SAT was the sort that most students have, or at least hadThe SATs were administered for the first time on June 23, 1926.
The last time I took the SATs, there was no essay.
she determined to take the SAT each of the seven times it was offered in the course of the calendar year
Stier’s only experience with the SAT was the sort that most students have, or at least had
The SATs were administered for the first time on June 23, 1926.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/03/140303fa_fact_kolbert?currentPage=all
― mookieproof, Friday, 28 February 2014 16:07 (ten years ago) link
oh i thought you were referring to there not being an apostrophe. yeah unless there's some sort of difference in i'm not aware of that's poor editing
― k3vin k., Friday, 28 February 2014 16:19 (ten years ago) link
yeah i don't understand why it would ever be plural, but at least pick one way
― mookieproof, Friday, 28 February 2014 16:25 (ten years ago) link
poor t-pain :(
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/the-sadness-of-t-pain.html
― °ㅇ๐ْ ° (gr8080), Thursday, 6 March 2014 21:05 (ten years ago) link
I just finished the epic Amazon article. Scared for the future.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 March 2014 21:19 (ten years ago) link
xpost I could have sworn from that article that SAT doesn't even stand for/mean anything anymore.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 6 March 2014 21:20 (ten years ago) link
this is massive and fascinatinghttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/03/140303fa_fact_khatchadourianhttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/video-how-to-put-a-star-into-a-bottle.html
― PSY talks The Nut Job (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 6 March 2014 21:39 (ten years ago) link
^^^
Yes.
"Spitzer was given time off from his bomb work to set up a secret thermonuclear-energy project in an old rabbit hutch at Princeton. He designed a tabletop device, which he called a stellarator, that looked like a pipe twisted into a figure eight. When the device was first turned on in the darkened hutch, an instantaneous purple glow appeared ..."
― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 March 2014 03:19 (ten years ago) link
that article about clubbing in berlin is something all right
― the portentous pepper (govern yourself accordingly), Tuesday, 18 March 2014 17:13 (ten years ago) link
KEYWORDSBERLIN, GERMANY; MUSIC; BERGHAIN; NIGHT CLUBS; BOAR HUNTERS; TECHNO CLUBS; E.D.M. (ELECTRONIC DANCE MUSIC)
The personal history essay about the author's deaf mother was one of the most moving things I've read in a while.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 17:18 (ten years ago) link
wasnt there somewhat recently another piece on under armour? or maybe it was somewhere else
the anthony lane article on ScarJo is some goddess worship, vanity fair ish imo
― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 17:24 (ten years ago) link
under armour and scarjo were both this week, yeah
― the portentous pepper (govern yourself accordingly), Tuesday, 18 March 2014 17:26 (ten years ago) link
i confused the under armour piece with the one on spanxx which was last years 'style issue' i think, maybe
― no war but glass war (Lamp), Tuesday, 18 March 2014 17:30 (ten years ago) link
under armour is by kelefa, yes?
― We hugged with no names exchanged (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 18 March 2014 17:30 (ten years ago) link
Recently I've loved Packer's Amazon epic, Tad Friend's Aronofsky profile and Roger Angell on old age.
― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Tuesday, 18 March 2014 23:06 (ten years ago) link
thought menand's article on paul de man was pretty good, mostly lacking in condescension for literary theorists and some decent context setting for a subject that rarely gets presented in a non-ludicrous way for a general audience.
― ryan, Thursday, 20 March 2014 03:40 (ten years ago) link
The ScarJo profile should have been bylined Anthony Lane's Dick
― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Thursday, 20 March 2014 11:05 (ten years ago) link
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/18/scarlett_johansson_profile_in_the_new_yorker_anthony_lane_reveals_nothing.html
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 20 March 2014 11:11 (ten years ago) link
Johansson’s backside, barely veiled in peach-colored underwear
― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Thursday, 20 March 2014 11:22 (ten years ago) link
Lane has always had a pervy streak, which I think he means to be cheeky but which often comes off, well, gross. Which is ironic, because Denby is the one who had an actual addiction to internet porn, which makes his eliding the issue (in, say, his epic, rambling "Nymphomaniac" review) that much more conspicuous.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 March 2014 11:57 (ten years ago) link
how is that ironic
― waterbabies (waterface), Thursday, 20 March 2014 13:03 (ten years ago) link
The guy with the porn addiction reviews the porn-ish movie about the sex addict without mentioning his porn addiction? Isn't that ironic?
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 March 2014 13:34 (ten years ago) link
no
― waterbabies (waterface), Thursday, 20 March 2014 13:38 (ten years ago) link
Also I read it as you think it's ironic Lane wrote the pervy article when it's Denby who had the addiction. still, not ironic.
― waterbabies (waterface), Thursday, 20 March 2014 13:39 (ten years ago) link
How about rain on your wedding day?
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 20 March 2014 13:40 (ten years ago) link
is the de man profile called Who's De Man
― socki (s1ocki), Thursday, 20 March 2014 13:41 (ten years ago) link
De Man Who Couldn't Afford To Orgy
― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 20 March 2014 13:44 (ten years ago) link
De Man Who Would Be King (Of Literary Theory). Elegant headline. They missed a trick.
― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Thursday, 20 March 2014 14:57 (ten years ago) link
she seemed to be made from champagne.
― We hugged with no names exchanged (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 20 March 2014 16:19 (ten years ago) link
The Derrida piece in Critical Inquiry that tried to exculpate de Man is actually really sad to read. He is just reaching so desperately to not face the truth and it's unusual to read something by Derrida where his vilnerability is apparent.
― Treeship, Thursday, 20 March 2014 16:33 (ten years ago) link
Menand did a great job of articulating why deconstructionism was incredibly exciting to some people and why, after a brief acquaintance with it at university, it has almost zero appeal to me.
― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Thursday, 20 March 2014 18:54 (ten years ago) link
He also did a good job of clearing up misunderstandings, especially this idea that there is something "nihilistic" in teasing out paradoxes in apparently stable texts.
― Treeship, Thursday, 20 March 2014 19:01 (ten years ago) link