New Yorker magazine alert thread

it doesnt require an explanation if you are vaguely familiar with the very famous film "the miracle worker"
its point (as jim explains) is that the original article is shocked that an accomplished, stanford-educated 28-year-old woman is being "allowed" to speak for her mother at campaign events
it makes that point by humorously contrasting chelsea clinton with helen keller

Just out of curiosity, what/where is the "original article" that post was responding to?

sorry I misread jims post there is no one specific "original article"

Rick Moody on that John Lurie profile:

http://therumpus.net/2011/06/swinging-modern-sounds-30-what-is-and-is-not-masculine/

Also from DD this week:

"In regular movies, representation is obviously more intimately joined to physical reality than, say, books or paintings are."

I guess this one should be put on his editor but still...in movies, books are not as close to reality as representation is...?

hmm. i'm not sure your rearranging of the original sentence is accurate. the original makes sense to me.

no, hadrian's right... to get denby's meaning the sentence should read

"In regular movies, representation is obviously more intimately joined to physical reality than in, say, books or paintings."

or, preferably

"Representation is obviously more intimately joined to physical reality in regular movies, than in, say, books or paintings."

without the first comma tho

guys, its never gonna make sense

oh wait, yeah, i see it now. it's like a magic eye poster, but way less satisfying!

because the satisfaction of seeing that 3D dolphin is fucking untouchable

Correction, June 28, 2011: The original article erroneously stated that 95% of Italian men had never operated a washing machine.

haha the fact too good to check

the aleksander henon thing was very sad

xp max you should post that to reddit/mens rights.

Love the piece about Rays outfielder Sam Fuld.

Sam Fuiud

Really like Joan Acocella's stuff on dance, the one from 2011/6/27 on Alexei Ratmansky is pretty good (haven't finished it yet):

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/27/110627fa_fact_acocella

xp I'm uneasy about the Lurie profile but Moody's got some serious issues with the New Yorker and a weird idea that profile-writers should only be engaged in promoting their subjects' art and praising their wonderful personalities. I wonder which interviewer or New Yorker writer pissed off Moody years back.

clever and arch in that New Yorker way, clever, condescending, self-satisfied, off-handedly cruel, lazy, elitist, devoid of bona fide literary purpose

a sprinkling of the kinds of details beloved not of artists but of media workers

if you think like a tabloid writer, or like a hack, it’s perhaps possible to understand why this would seem like the meat of the story on John Lurie (ostensible subject of the profile); it’s the meat of the story if you are a meat-and-potatoes guy, a fetishist of parodistic ideas of the masculine, but it has nothing to do with who John Lurie is among family and friends.

haha i tried to read that post and i was just like 'this is how you write'

the nyer lurie article was awesome and salacious imho

Moody describes it in one para as both "salacious and tawdry" and "exceedingly boring". How can it be both? I like his idea that only interviewing Lurie's friends and admirers and going on at length about his individual recordings would be some kind of thrillride.

Also, get off your fucking high horse.

It’s ugly and dull and perhaps even morally embarrassing, at least if you give a shit about art, music, literature, or the loftier aspirations of man and woman.

Makes me want to go and reread that notorious Dale Peck takedown of Moody, just for lols

i gave up early on when he started picking apart "everyone in 'downtown New York,' a.k.a., 'the known universe—basically,'"

this isn't a criticism, but, the larry david piece in the july 4 issue is really helped by how easy it is to summon a manic, conversational, larry-david-voice in your head while reading

I like Larry David, but I thought that piece was dire. Jokes based around the Kubler-Ross stages of grief are pretty damn tired at this point.

excited to read this! (not being sarcastic)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=9

wait, that's a link to page nine -- here's the whole thing: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all

"I like Larry David, but I thought that piece was dire."

that page is where funny often goes to die. i don't blame him. its like the bermuda triangle.

OTM

But does that excuse go for Paul Rudnick as well, or is he just unfunny?

probably my general uniform positivity about the main articles every week isn't going to help gr8080 pare down his pile of unread articles, but paumgarten & the han-han piece in last week's are both p engrossing. feel like the online dating thing probably has gladwell feeling like it shoulda been one of his ..?, in being in that ballpark.

i think the sole redeeming element of my print copy arriving on thursday is when it's a double issue, & the wait doesn't feel so long.

han han was nice, online dating felt like a slightly more polished times magazine piece

Love the piece about Rays outfielder Sam Fuld.

Seems like a swell guy, too bad about coming from Stanfurd. Also, companion podcast to the Fuld article, with McGrath and ~*sigh*~ Amy Davidson: http://www.newyorker.com/online/2011/07/04/110704on_audio_mcgrath

sports. it is not good. for humanity.

does amy davidson write anything longer than the comment on the ny-er blogs?, & in the magazine? she's so consistently good lately, i wondered if she had any longer pieces up in the archives.

george packer making me sad again

Going all the way back to Eagleman in Texas, trying to see if time slows down for real when a person senses they're in danger. I finally found video of the "ride" he uses to gauge his research subjects' fear factor with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBJ5e2ihVUg

From Cracked.com, of course.

good find!
watching that makes me feel. unwell.

i really want to try it. (for science.)

hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

getting the shakes just thinking about it

I'm 100% sure if I did this I would turn around mid-fall, stretch out like superman, catch a draft and fly right outside of the net and plummet to my death.

That cracked article was great btw, read it this morning as well. I remember Action Park from when I was a kid. Glad I never went.

Actually I did sorta go, Action Park was part of Vernon Valley/Great Gorge, which is the only place I ever went skiing.

Then, in July, a scad operator in the Wisconsin Dells triggered a drop before the net had been lifted fully into place. When the rider—a twelve-year-old girl named Teagan Marti—landed in the net, her momentum stretched it to the ground. The impact fractured her skull and broke her spine in ten places.

I rode this once:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Drop

NB I am terrified of rollercoasters but was forced to by peer pressure. luckily my friend next to me was even more scared and I distracted myself by telling him everything was gonna be alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SxuR1GTsg

according to the web it takes you up 62 meters or 200 feet. O_o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NldcjT9sr0

okay this one is scarier! as commenters have noted the worst part is the rise to the top, you keep on going and going and going and when you think there's no way you can go up anymore, you go up another 10 meters. and then when you're at the top you look down and around at the park and think 'holy fuck this is high.' and all you can do is wait for the plunge.

And of course, leave it to the Japanese to come up with a ride that offers a 120º drop

"A 120-degree…. wha, how doest that work?" you ask.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Vy_YzhwHE

(Anyway, sorry for the derail.)

you guys, nothing is as fucked up as the Tower of Terror

well okay the freefall into the cargo net is more fucked up