New Yorker magazine alert thread

Yeah, a lot of Sanneh's NYer profiles seem to be of people ignored by or looked down upon by the urban cognoscenti: Morgan Wallen, Jake Paul, etc.

He sorta leans that way on social media

Can’t imagine why anyone would want to look down on either of those charming fellows!

yeah the gillis piece felt like something to round out a book and was genuinely uninteresting

Does the centerpiece article ever explain what it means to be the"Bjork of food?"

a fountain of blood in the shape of fondue

Lol

the bread chair was fire tho

https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2020/01/loaf-comfort-omar-sosa-friedman-benda-new-york_dezeen_2364_col_0.jpg

Chotiner interviews Matt Duss on Ukraine, etc..

Molly Ringwald reminisces on working with Godard on King Lear.

that was a good one. what a weirdo

Watching Burgess Meredith drink wine was my favorite part.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/19/the-repressive-politics-of-emotional-intelligence

So many stories about Burgess Meredith, didn’t know what to expect in the Molly Ringwald thing.

It's not like I have much faith in liberal journalists but it's truly astonishing to see this passage in the New Yorker. What year is this? pic.twitter.com/WvXUUMJWWT

— Erik Baker (@erikmbaker) December 29, 2022

It's unfortunate to see some of the most respected venues in journalism taking this turn—exceptionalizing individuals and groups who advocate for greater public health protections and portraying them as deviant, immature, countercultural, Marxists, etc. 1/https://t.co/eqqA8x6YOY

— Martha Lincoln (@heavyredaction) December 28, 2022

That headline is awful.

the headline seems designed to be hate read bait for the right, whereas the contents are not. and sure enough ian cheong is tweeting it and musk replying. congrats to the new yorker.

The problem with creating hate read bait for the right is that the right doesn’t read.

if this is in reference to the emma green article, I haven’t read it and am not terribly interested to do so, I’m not a stan or anything for the new yorker but there is a certain… standard that she consistently falls below, just a very odd fit for the institution. her heterodox bumpkin david brooks-citing approach seemed more suited for the atlantic, where she was previously

an editorial failure I suppose

yes

One to skip

I never had a source assaulted in front of me until today when an Israeli soldier who stopped my interview did this with a Palestinian peace activist Issa Amro in Hebron. I can't stop thinking how dehumanizing the occupation is on the young soldiers charged with enforcing it. pic.twitter.com/Qrsa1UJsfA

— Lawrence Wright (@lawrence_wright) February 13, 2023

amazing tweet

…

Man. (At the tweet, the video, the responses.)

Wright also had a very, very long story about Austin, Texas and how it’s changing in the latest issue.

That Austin piece was a rare example of a New Yorker article that seemed like it should be a book (in the vein of Sam Anderson's Boom Town, about Oklahoma City), rather than the reverse.

I mean, he's not wrong about the dehumanizing effect on soldiers but ...

I am currently irritated with the NYer because it feels like they are doing “double” issues way more than they used to.

That Austin piece was kinda irritating, too.

That Austin piece was a rare example of a New Yorker article that seemed like it should be a book

He already wrote a big book about Texas, "God Save Texas: A Journey into the Soul of the Lone Star State."

Hope it was better than his novel, which was a pile of shit.

Scientology book was ok, but fell short of being the definitive outlier text

that tweet phrasing is abominable

should i read the agnes callard thing

i mean i love a trainwreck as much as the next person but possibly it will be too depressing

i read it and just kind of shrugged but she seems like she sucks

Yet another pseudo-intellectual justifying their fucking around with bullshit, this stuff should have died with the Fabian Society.

seems like she's surrounded by people who like her for some reasons and just kind of let her do whatever because it's not worth disagreeing

I did see some reactions on twitter from the guy she co-hosts a podcast with and he was kind of brutal!

A few years ago, I wrote an essay that, in passing, questioned faculty solidarity with unionizing graduate students. I had not realized how sensitive that topic was, and I was inundated with angry and hateful messages and a few threats online.

https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/ap/06990af2-6d7a-4d62-b9c3-1ddcf771b5e5.jpg

that bad stance still far outweighs the weird and bad relationship hijinks

JCO multiple-driveby for those who celebrate

(excerpt from an uncompleted novel of Iris Murdoch focusing intensely, one might say hysterically-minuscule-ly, upon banal-stereotypical notions dressed up in philosophy-speak is no departure for the deceased novelist but her usual fatuous characters are here unleavened by wit.) https://t.co/YLvTL4SYdS

— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) March 8, 2023

damn

Thought JCO would like her for throwing out her kids' Halloween candy

JCO = out there everyday, proving what a power user she is.

I read 2/3rds. Veered between "that's the piece I would point ppl to if they wanted an answer to "what is philosophy for?" question to juvenile giggling at stuff like this:

After seven years of marriage, they watched Ingmar Bergman’s “Scenes from a Marriage,” a portrait of a couple as they struggle to understand the limits and possibilities of their relationship in the course of a decade. “It’s extraordinary that two people can live a whole life together without—” the wife’s mother says. “Without touching,” the wife answers.

you've got to read to the end to get the final story twists

It turns out she is...a cat person

the proposed book title "Marriage is a Preparation for Divorce" is like an alternate world Lana del Rey album title

sorry, song title

She wondered what it would look like if she and Arnold integrated new romantic relationships into their marriage. They would all keep talking about philosophy, but with fresh ideas in the mix. They asked each other whether it would violate the terms of their marriage if they became romantically involved with other people. “We didn’t think there was any good reason other than the usual conventions of marriage to answer that question with a yes,” she said. They referred to their new agreement as the Variation.

university of chicago philosophy geniuses, and they arrive at being poly

After our conversation in Pennsylvania, Agnes said Arnold worried that they’d given me the impression that their marriage was a success story.

as much as you can quantify marriage on a success/failure scale, no