xyzzzz and I finally agree on something: changes in Royal Oak cuisine.
― the pinefox, Friday, 5 July 2019 16:07 (three months ago) link
I have at last read the whole of this issue - even the two terrible poems.
I guess I didn't enjoy it that much after all.
― the pinefox, Sunday, 7 July 2019 12:03 (three months ago) link
perhaps for somewhat perverse reasons, i quite enjoyed the lillian ross piece -- it's sent me back to brendan gill's "here at the new yorker". i will write reasons and perversity and gill and maybe ohagan up on the LRB thread when i am no longer ill, also ditto wordsworth's fun
(i am no longer ill today in the sense of being i think virus-free at last but i am still very tired and last night was the first thing close to a normal night's sleep since tuesday)
(i ahev not read the poems and think it quite unlikely i ever will, i feel bad about this habit but it is now decades embedded and i'm guessing unshakeable)
― mark s, Sunday, 7 July 2019 12:10 (three months ago) link
Mark yes it is fair to say that though O'Hagan is bad, the review is not unreadable and has a kind of fun element.
I suppose part of the irritation though is the patent obviousness with which O'H attached himself to a certain world that he admired, and then the way that he (often) writes about it - a kind of (non-comic) pastiche of the original; trying to be Didion, or whoever.
If you think of say a Paul Morley encountering a scene, he wouldn't write in a lame pastiche of its manner but would encounter it with his own style.
Unless it was for a book on rock press history in which case he wouldn't write it?
The poems really are bad.
― the pinefox, Sunday, 7 July 2019 20:06 (three months ago) link
yes i don't disagree with that -- abt the attachment i mean. i haven't written this up yet bcz i've been apply for a job by telling the publication start-up i'm applying to that their underlying philosophy is probably bad (i have no idea what it is) and so they should feel bad
semi-unrelatedly i just sent the LRB a snarky email re LR and AO'H pointing out that what in fact transformed the unpleasant qualities he admires in her into tremendous journalism was the involvement in her work (or threat of involvement hovering behind it) of the new yorker's fact-checking department, at-that-time world-leading
(but expressed a lot more directly, in case lanchester is lurking)
― mark s, Wednesday, 10 July 2019 13:22 (three months ago) link
written up here: Book Reviews? LRB vs the failing New York Review of Books vs ... ?
― mark s, Friday, 12 July 2019 14:07 (three months ago) link