New Yorker magazine alert thread

xp well tbf, i don't know anything about the book but what i read in that piece

i think guys like shaw are lacking an nfl skillset really

I thought the forensic linguistics piece was a good overview of the field; maybe I just wanted it also to be an unfolding mystery.

yeah p sure the strongman guys don't have NFL feet but that was one of the finest summer pieces i can remember in a long time.

junot diaz doing his thing too and seems like maybe an excerpt from some forthcoming post-wao stuff?

two thousand page remnick-on-springsteen profile in the new ish

Personal theory: high-profile writers keep returning to the Boss to guarantee stream of good free seats to hot-ticket Bruce in NYC/Philly/NJ shows.

well they are also all in the right demo where they genuinely idolize him & would go & pay crazy prices regardless

xxp - that story was the first junot diaz ive ever read & i liked it. picked up 'oscar wao' @ a book sale this wkend

David Remnick: The Promise: Springsteen at the Crossroads

it's good. no real specific links made between the biography & his work, so much, but nice all the same. His muscle tone approximates a fresh tennis ball.

round, furry

lol did bruce let him squeeze the guns

no surprise this appears in the NY:

“This is about the only live music left, with a few exceptions,” Cooper said. Lip-synchers are legion. Coldplay thickens its sound with heaps of pre-taped instruments and synthesizers. The one artificial sound in Springsteen’s act is a snare-drum sound in “We Take Care of Our Own” that seemed to elude easy reproduction.

got to get that snare just right

I am descending into a rabbit hole after discovering the world of professional arm wrestling

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

that is v strange

that moment at 1:01 is like when you shit your pants again immediately after changing your pants

...DAMMIT

brzenk is a MONSTER; cool to hear that they did an NY piece on him
i strongly recommend watching Iron John; its on netflix instant

this was aw:

One kindness that Springsteen has afforded his body is more days off, leaving time for his family, for exercise, for listening to music, watching movies, reading. Lately, he has been consumed with Russian fiction. “It’s compensatory—what you missed the first time around,” he said. “I’m sixty-some, and I think, There are a lot of these Russian guys! What’s all the fuss about? So I was just curious. That was an incredible book: ‘The Brothers Karamazov.’ Then I read ‘The Gambler.’ The social play in the first half was less interesting to me, but the second half, about obsession, was fun. That could speak to me. I was a big John Cheever fan, and so when I got into Chekhov I could see where Cheever was coming from. And I was a big Philip Roth fan, so I got into Saul Bellow, ‘Augie March.’ These are all new connections for me. It’d be like finding out now that the Stones covered Chuck Berry!”

yeah otm. & the passage about jon landau feeding him steinbeck & westerns.

weird fetish

lol @ brooce playing remnick like a fiddle w/ the russian lit.

I love how Springsteen has become more and more interesting an interview the less and less interesting his music gets.

I'd rather read the Brothers Karamazov backwards, followed by the Esperanto translation of War and Peace, than listen to Bruce Springsteen.

that's real funny, i'm impressed by your wit

thanks

A buddy of mine wrote a pretty great piece on skateboarding / Transworld (which is doing a cool 30-yr skate celebration of their own) for TNY that's worth a read. Wish there were a good way to filter TNY's web-only content.

I'd rather read the Brothers Karamazov backwards, followed by the Esperanto translation of War and Peace, than listen to Bruce Springsteen.

― One Way Ticket on the 1277 Express (Bill Magill), Tuesday, July 24, 2012 3:16 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2gGXlW6wSY

yeah, i'd like to see that put to the test

also with european hockey championships playing in the background

song of the decade btw

of the year at least

when/how did bill magill turn into a nerd

who else stans for sabbath over everything?

Springsteen was aware of the comical contradiction: the multimillionaire who, in his theatrical self-presentation, is the voice of the dispossessed. Very occasionally, twinges of discomfort about this have leaked into his lyrics. In the late eighties, Springsteen played “Ain’t Got You,” which appeared on his album “Tunnel of Love,” for Van Zandt. The lyrics tell of a fellow who gets “paid a king’s ransom for doin’ what comes naturally”—who’s got “the fortunes of heaven” and a “house full of Rembrandt and priceless art”—but lacks the affections of his beloved. Van Zandt recognized the self-mockery but didn’t care. He was aghast.

“We had one of our biggest fights of our lives,” Van Zandt recalled. “I’m, like, ‘What the fuck is this?’ And he’s, like, ‘Well, what do you mean, it’s the truth. It’s just who I am, it’s my life.’ And I’m, like, ‘This is bullshit. People don’t need you talking about your life. Nobody gives a shit about your life. They need you for their lives. That’s your thing. Giving some logic and reason and sympathy and passion to this cold, fragmented, confusing world—that’s your gift. Explaining their lives to them. Their lives, not yours.’ And we fought and fought and fought and fought. He says ‘Fuck you,’ I say ‘Fuck you.’ I think something in what I said probably resonated.”

I actually learned a lot from that Springsteen piece. It's not about rock stars getting older, per se, but that seems to be a major theme.

I thought the Shouts & Murmurs piece from the perspective of a condom (!) was surprisingly touching.

the new malcolm gladwell was godawful. it feels like the middle 4 pages were accidentally left out or something. it starts to connect the notion of exhaustion to "slack", and then he brings in "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty" to make some sort of...point...and then back to how running at an elite level is exhausting, and also alberto salazar is a superman who regularly repels impending death with the sheer power of his will, and fin. what?

also, wasn't there some sort of feature on salazar in the NYer a year ago or so, or was that somewhere else?

yup http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/08/101108fa_fact_kahn

the new malcolm gladwell was godawful. it feels like the middle 4 pages were accidentally left out or something.

Man, otm. I couldn't figure out its point for the life of me.

Yeah, between that one and the terrible one about how awful it was for that rich lady to have buy expensive houses in Concord I was ready to throw the issue across the room in disgust.

anyone read this?

http://shameproject.com/report/malcolm-gladwell-unmasked-life-work-of-americas-most-successful-propagandist/

(maybe it was actually linked upthread, don't remember where i found it)

it's kind of a screed, but maybe it has some points?

This issue was an atypical NYer for me: I got a lot out of Talk of the Town for once (the Gibson thing! I had no idea) but the features were a fuckin' wash (liked the Gombrowicz review though)

did not even read the god damn houses in Concord. Spider senses were like NO.

xxp it's pretty much correct about him being a corporate shill.

did not even read the god damn houses in Concord. Spider senses were like NO.

I wish I would have stayed away. She hinted a couple times near the start about her and her husband stretching their credit to buy their huge house so I was at least hoping for a turn towards the end to a lesson learned, but, no, nothing happened except she sold that house too for another more expensive one that even had a whole other former factory on the land for her kids to party in. It was so terrible.

Hah, I actually enjoyed the Gladwell piece, probably because it didn't have a dodgy thesis, and when it just focused on Madman Salazar, it was absorbing. Also, http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vAqRGOQ17I8/TGyo1tdOEXI/AAAAAAAALS8/eA9sDDJ7fN4/s1600/gladwell.jpg

The TV pieces recently have been dreadful (esp. the Louis review concluding with something like "let's come back and talk more about it together" wut?) but the piece on cliffhangers thing this week...just...ugh. Did anybody here read this? Maybe just the worst thing I've ever read in the magazine.

Not a huge Bruce fan but the Remnick piece is pretty good....

new tv critic is definitely, um, bloggy. still like her better than the last one though. not saying much but...

Yeah it's been a long bad run with the the TV criticism. I skipped the Nancy Franklin out of habit. But I dunno, everything after the first paragraph is like she's writing to the word count, or they gave her the illustration and said write about this.

except for harlan ellison, whose tv crit is really barely tv crit, i can't think of any television critics that i think are great classic must reads etc

the whole sepinwall project has been an intellectual dead end

Historically, there's something suspect about a story told in this manner, the way it tugs the customer to the next ledge. Nobody likes needy. But there is also something to celebrate about the cliffhanger, which makes visible the storyteller's connection to his audience—like a bridge made out of lightning.

yeah, that's pretty high school creative writing journal shit there