It's quite a collection.
I don't know if you can see it without a subscription, but this is one magazine clearly worth subscribing to. I only have 4 magazine subscriptions, and if I could only have one, this would be it. The others? New York Magazine, New York Review of Books, and Vanity Fair. I subscribed to Vanity Fair for a particular article and don't know if I'll renew my subscription. It needs to measure up. The other 2 have served my purposes well enough — that is, I have access to many things that turn out to be bloggable. But The New Yorker stands alone. Much of it annoys me, but often in a way that proves bloggable. In any case, the illustrations really are phenomenal, and seeing so many collected on one webpage makes an immense impression.
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
I subscribed many years ago but found it overwhelming. Too much quality writing; I couldn’t keep up. When I let my subscription lapse, I had a stack of unread issues 2-feet high. If I kept trying, by now it probably would have fallen on me and killed me.
New Yorker illustrations are quite interesting and very well done. I wonder if they are subject to the same level of editorial review as are words.
Well done or not, no illustration will cause me to support Elizabeth Kolbert's views on "global warming".
It's been no good since Harold Ross left.
"Much of it annoys me, but often in a way that proves bloggable"
Ha. AA, it seems 80% of your posts relate to something you find annoying. It gets your blood pumping, so it seems. It's a big reason why I read your blog.
I clicked through and the illustrations are, in fact, creative and wonderful.
I also read the article, “Climate Change A through Z.” Add to the article the David Remnick unblogable article on January 6, and the problem is exposed. The New Yorker is representative of how crazy today’s liberals have become. And I don’t use the word “crazy” lightly. The New Yorker published Bill McKibben’s latest insanity about blocking out the sun. No editor said, That’s insane!
The A to Z piece says electrify everything. But as more things become electric and the grid uses more solar and wind, the cost of electricity skyrockets. It is much higher in Europe than in US right now. Germany spends 7% of its GDP subsidizing electricity for consumers and business.
Solar and wind are unreliable. TN had forced blackouts last week. People died in TX last year and it was rationalized.
I could skewer The New Yorker by myself. It represents the intellectual failure of Liberals.
I find myself missing paper magazines and actual newspapers. I remember the regular thump of the Philadelphia Inquirer and WSJ at 5:20 am every morning as regular as an alarm clock. A quiet hour with coffee after that watching the sun come up before off to work. I also looked forward to the weekly New Yorker. We are close enough to NY that following the music venues, especially jazz clubs, could lead to a weekend trip. Also Esquire, which was great for a few years, and then GQ, which took over and was excellent in the 90’s. Sunday NYT was always an adventure of a few hours.
Most of all I miss newsstands in the city, especially international ones. It was like the Internet at 15th and Market St. All the news from the world right in front of you. Plus, if you had a regular newsstand there was always the interaction with the owner about the past days sports events. That was part of the package.
It’s different on a tablet. Not sure why. While some things have improved over time, many things have not. I feel like they overvalue easy of delivery and undervalued having a good product.
The New Yorker was one of the principle villains pushing the Russia collusion hoax.
It needs to die. It aided the sabotage of the 2020 election. The hell with their illustrations.
My family and I spent a year under house arrest, and these bastards played a role in making that happen. The deliberate release of the virus and the hysteria around it were partly the New Yorker’s work. They prepared the groundwork.
The New Yorker is the real Nazi publication. I hope it collapses and disappears.
My experience was identical to that of Tim Maguire. Also I didn't understand the cartoons.
We’re Not Going Back to the Time Before Roe. We’re Going Somewhere Worse,
How? Exactly?
I could look but didn't stay. All I saw were pessimistic and depressing. They can't do joyful illustrations? Or, at least, thoughtful ones that don't have a dark undertone or an ironic wink.
My experience was identical to that of Tim Maguire. Also I didn't understand the cartoons.
You could just move to New York I guess.
I thought I would peruse some of this magazine on your recommendation. I found it to be exactly what I would have thought, a democrat propaganda machine. Spitting lies and unfounded innuendo at their favorite non-democrat targets. A waste of electrons imo.
I subscribe to the same publications. Plus Vanity Fair which I got in some deal with the New Yorker. I have taken. NYRB for fifty years. I take ROLLING stone and the Atlantic as well. Plus the Spectator which I find the best of the lot.
I saw a lot of art styles but none looked more recent than 1968, which is when I imagine their editorial viewpoint congealed. I did like the wood cut/lino block print of animals, though.
I dropped The New Yorker within 24 hours of their printing Ronan Farrow's hit piece on Bret Kavanaugh in what I call "Wanglegate". They clearly could not verify the allegations--not even their source was confident of her memory and no one else substantiated it-- but published it anyway.
Fact checking? Why bother? Go with it. Let's feed the delusions of our readers!
Bah! Humbug!
The New Yorker--the gateway drug for hoarders. "The body was found in a house in disarray--with stacks of old magazines, nonfunctional electric gadgets, half-eaten food, and piles of worn and torn clothes everywhere. The magazines appeared to be mostly old copies of The New Yorker and National Geographic."
You folks are missing the show if you don't read The New Criterion.
It's not a safe space and I am terribly disturbed and frightened by intelligent women with opinions I disagree with. That's why I stick with PJ Media and Breitbart.
Homer Simpson, upon discovering that he actually enjoyed putting a Lego set together with Lisa:
"Well, what do you know? I enjoyed playing with you. No, no, no. Listen to me. We played... And it wasn't boring."
"You're my girl and I love you. But I'm letting you in on a secret. When parents play with their kids, they don't like it, and I'm no different. Suddenly I can't breathe. Every fiber of my being
screams out for a nap."
"And if someone handed me an issue of the New Yorker (chuckles), I would read the fiction. I swear to God I would."
"...intelligent women with opinions I disagree with."
Surrounded by them. But they disagree with me, so what are they doing here? Oh yeah, disagreement is how we keep from persisting in mistakes.
Four magazines.
All Northeast, progreesive-liberal-centric...
Hmm.
The New Yorker--the gateway drug for hoarders.
Too true. I had boxes stacks of them before I got rid of them. They were for me what National Geographic and Time were for my father. The New Yorker may have had abhorrent views, but there was always something interesting -- even if only a cartoon -- and English teachers had created a fetishistic aura around the magazine. There's been a falling off lately, IMHO.
Most of all I miss newsstands in the city, especially international ones.
Also true. Going downtown could be an international adventure, a safari. Reading the papers on the computer screen at home isn't the same. Stories that are just blah on your device can be more interesting when they jump out from a printed page with illustrations. Even the rush that came from reading foreign newspapers and magazines online in the early days of the internet is gone. You get used to it. Plus all the paywalls have gone up.
Their illustrations/comics are generally good. Most often the articles are high quality. Politically/socially/culturally, probably 96% of them are on the other team.
When I was in "the sandbox", I had family and friends mail all sorts of magazines. That was one on the list.
Gay art.
Much of it annoys me, but often in a way that proves bloggable
I like that! I relate to the annoyance, and see how that could make it bloggable.
Much of it annoys me, but often in a way that proves bloggable
I like that! I relate to the annoyance, and see how that could make it bloggable.
Back in the day, New Yorker introduced me to great writers and exposed me to the East Coast Rich Person sensibility.
There are still some good writers. Rich People are now more decadent. But the propaganda is prevalent and disgraceful. I decline to subsidize it.
If 75% (and potentially 100%!) of the magazines you subscribe to have the words "New York" in the title, then you probably should be living in New York and not, say, in the Midwest.
"If 75% (and potentially 100%!) of the magazines you subscribe to have the words "New York" in the title, then you probably should be living in New York and not, say, in the Midwest."
It's a nice place to get pushed in front of a subway train, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Now that we are clear on the fact that the artist is not in charge of the interpretation of the art, I can enjoy these pictures free of the political statements of others.
Subscriber since the early 70s when Bill Shawn was editor and there were no photos.
I say Bill the way H-wood folks say Chuck Heston. Have thrown many issues across the room. Most containing something by Elizabeth Kolbert. Lived through the helms of Tina and Gottlieb. Rebecca Mead is consistently great. So's Anthony Lane. Have to say Remnick, normally an ass, wrote the finest piece on Dylan I've ever read.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा