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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) link
you guys
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 6 August 2012 13:47 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) link
Well, now we know the inspiration for Elijah in Girls.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:09 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) link
Actually yes.
― I dont even know that I think this sucks per se (forksclovetofu), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:33 (eleven years ago) link
definitely more cringeworthy
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:34 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) link
I thought those excerpts of Bossypants were pretty funny.
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 16:36 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) link
and not really out of context?
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 16:37 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) link
i'll even put up with Rin Tin Tin articles
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 16:39 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) link
OK.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:46 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) link
xpost I don't get it, Que, are you looking to play "gotcha" with that Trillin quote? All I said was the style of Fey's and Dunham's pieces stood out for me, but I didn't say it was unprecedented within the hallowed annals of the magazine or anything. And I found them all fairly entertaining, anyhow, so no big deal.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Monday, 6 August 2012 16:54 (eleven years ago) link
i just thought it was funny that you used the word casual to describe the pieces when the New Yorker has been running these kinds of pieces for a long time.
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 16:59 (eleven years ago) link
. . . and even called them casuals!
― Mr. Que, Monday, 6 August 2012 17:00 (eleven years ago) link
now ON IPHONE, current issue free
― undermikey: bidness (Autumn Almanac), Tuesday, 7 August 2012 21:46 (eleven years ago) link
Speaking of mobile NYer, anyone know why my Asus Transformer (Android) can't use the Android app?
― Nothing cracks a turtle like Leeeon Uris (Leee), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 01:01 (eleven years ago) link
I cannot believe how hard it is to log in to the iPhone app. I've subscribed for years and there is no way in hell I'm getting into this thing. I can get into the archives online just fine.
― Brakhage, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 01:25 (eleven years ago) link
I logged in okay, but it logged me out again, so could be a bug. btw nice that the editions are 27 mb and not 270 mb
― undermikey: bidness (Autumn Almanac), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 01:32 (eleven years ago) link
It doesn't help that Conde is partially running the back end, so you can have two logins (NYer and NYer Archives) ... the UI on this thing is annoying (filled out an entire form, hit 'done' which of course didn't submit the form, it erased it). I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their servers are being hammered by fanboys like me, and try again tomorrow
― Brakhage, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 01:37 (eleven years ago) link
Feel free to describe the wonderful world which I am forbidden to enter
― Brakhage, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 01:38 (eleven years ago) link
it's nice, I've not explored properly yet (sick) but the interface is more considered than slapdash
― undermikey: bidness (Autumn Almanac), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 02:11 (eleven years ago) link
Just read Ryan Lizza's Paul Ryan article, pretty useless boilerplate bio stuff.
Just the latest in a recent string of know thine enemy pieces (see also: Newt, Koch Bros., other billionaire LA Republican fundraiser guy)
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 13:46 (eleven years ago) link
this no work 4 me
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 August 2012 20:05 (eleven years ago) link
Looks like Claressa shields, the boxer profiled a couple months ago, will be trying to win gold tmrw.
― Moreno, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 20:59 (eleven years ago) link
hey, this is the fucking worsthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTiCulvL-lA
― I dont even know that I think this sucks per se (forksclovetofu), Friday, 10 August 2012 17:22 (eleven years ago) link
Fareed Zakaria: "Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore's essay in the April 23rd issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers."
"Time has suspended Zakaria for his offense"
― Brakhage, Friday, 10 August 2012 20:23 (eleven years ago) link
i always kinda wonder if anyone ever genuinely does that by mistake -- like, reads something, silently absorbs its exact phrasing, and unknowingly regurgitates it -- or if the journalism industry is just filled with lazy ppl who believe they'll be the one who gets away with it, or 'everybody does it' or something. i assume zakaria's in the latter group, since his paragraph is virtually word-for-word plagiarism.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 10 August 2012 20:34 (eleven years ago) link
I was kind of idly wondering in the Zakaria thread about the chance it was unintentional. Part of my job involves writing, and sometimes a word will strike me as particularly apt or evocative, and then I'll realize/discover that it was in a source I just consulted. But usually it's just a single word or maybe a short phrase. I think you're right, though, about Zakaria -- it's hard for me to imagine someone unwittingly copying the shape and structure of a whole paragraph.
― Trewster Dare (jaymc), Friday, 10 August 2012 20:42 (eleven years ago) link
not every publication can have the same level of fact checking as the new yorker
― kanye shiwen (dayo), Friday, 10 August 2012 20:43 (eleven years ago) link