"Please don’t write about this immediately. I know how you work, and that you will. But please, just not right away."

Said the "Girls" showrunner, Jenni Konner, to Lena Dunham, quoted in "In 'Famesick,' Lena Dunham Diagnoses Celebrity, Illness and Herself/This unusually unfiltered memoir takes us to the hospital, to therapy and to the sometimes hostile set of 'Girls'" (NYT).

The book reviewer, Alexandra Jacobs, adds: "Maybe, contra Dunham’s mentor Nora Ephron, not everything is copy? Or at least … everything needs a copy editor? The Keebler elf makes a second, sexualized appearance; 'Harold and the Purple Crayon' is invoked twice; and Jack and Lena share soup from a 'terrine.'"

Points if you know the difference between a terrine and a tureen. 

I know "tureen" because I know "Alice in Wonderland" — "The Mock Turtle's Song":

"If you're the mother who was reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone aloud to your child..."

"... on the LNER train from London to Edinburgh yesterday, one of my grown up children was listening and says you did the voices brilliantly "

Writes J.K. Rowling, on X — a particularly fine use of X.

I love that there are responses right there, including the crabby ones, like: "Was reading it loud not disturbing others even though your child enjoyed it?"/"I’m the mother and I don’t care what your grown up children thinks"/"Hopefully she verbally edited all the grammatical and editorial errors you so carelessly left throughout the book"/"The best education lies in reading the Bible; fairy tales or magic wands don't solve everyday problems."

But isn't there a magic wand in the Bible though? See Exodus 7:8-13, Exodus 7-8, Numbers 17, Numbers 17:8, Numbers 17:10, Hebrews 9:4.

"Reckless and intense: we are headed straight to the point of the matter, and there is no time."

"This urgency, this wildness, the seeming unruliness of his style, which is echoed in the many abrupt twists and turns in the action toward the end of the chapters—the reader must be kept in a state of suspense until the next installment—runs against something else, something heavier and slower, a patiently insistent question that is related to everything that is happening: What are we living for?"

Writes the great novelist Karl Ove Knausgaard, in "The Light of 'The Brothers Karamazov'/Although Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote with wildness and urgency, he patiently insisted on asking an essential question: What are we living for?" (The New Yorker).

Dostoyevsky was rushing because he was writing installments and needed the money. His wife observed

"If the White House must be remade, let there be a plan; let it be debated; let the financing be transparent and free of kickbacks and corruption."

"It isn’t complicated, and it’s the very principle at the heart of the American Revolution: following rules is not weakness.... Architecture embodies values; it is not merely a receptacle of them. Simple proportions and human-scale spaces don’t just suggest the spirit of a democratic nation. They are that spirit in three dimensions, with doors and windows. Reverence for the past, and reluctance to destroy until the risks of destruction are fully known, is not timidity but wisdom, in architecture as in life. To conserve, after all, is the essence of conservatism. The shock that images of the destruction provoke—the grief so many have felt—is not an overreaction to the loss of a beloved building. It is a recognition of something deeper: the central values of democracy being demolished before our eyes. Now we do not only sense it. We see it."

Writes Adam Gopnik, at the end of his New Yorker essay, "Why Trump Tore Down the East Wing/The act of destruction is precisely the point: a kind of performance piece meant to display Trump’s arbitrary power over the Presidency, including its physical seat."

Reverence for the past and reluctance to destroy until the risks of destruction are fully known — but is that your general principle? If it is, you are a committed conservative. 

***

As long as we're talking about rules... the traditional rules of punctuation would reject those those commas after "the past" and "fully known." It's easy to see if you put it this way: Reverence and reluctance is not timidity. Not: Reverence, and reluctance, is not timidity. And, obviously, "is" is wrong! I suspect that at one point the sentence was "Reverence for the past — along with reluctance to destroy until the risks of destruction are fully known — is not timidity but wisdom, in architecture as in life." 

Punctuation and grammar embody values; they are not merely a receptacle of them. I remember when the great tradition of The New Yorker was scrupulously tending to these matters. Is my grief an overreaction to the loss of a beloved publishing tradition?

"If your li'l girl comes home and said she was forced to undress in a locker room with a biological boy, what would you say? She's crying!"

I asked Abigail what if one of her girls came home crying because she was forced to undress next to a man.

Her silence speaks volumes. pic.twitter.com/FtkM6ir9KT

— Winsome Earle-Sears (@winwithwinsome) October 9, 2025

Why wasn't the Democrat, Abigail Spanberger, sharp enough to come up with something to say?

I asked Grok to write an answer for Spanberger and got: "I would hug my daughter tight, wipe away her tears, and tell her I love her no matter what. Then I'd explain that everyone deserves to feel safe and respected at school, including transgender kids who are just trying to be themselves. We'd work with the school to make sure there are options like private changing stalls for anyone who needs them, because protecting all our children means building a community where no one is left out or made to feel ashamed."

I was surprised by "I would... tell her I love her no matter what." I think that implies that the mother's first thought is, Oh, no, my daughter is transphobic!

ADDED: Here's the whole debate, and I'm pinpointing the beginning of the locker room talk:

"Why Don't You... Cover a big cork bulletin board in bright pink felt banded with bamboo, and pin with colored thumb-tacks all your various enthusiasms as your life varies from week to week?"

Wrote Diana Vreeland, quoted in "Diana Vreeland Asks, Why Don't You.... Diana Vreeland helmed the stylish pages of BAZAAR for 25 years. During that time she penned an advice column with extravagant ideas for the modern woman. We rounded up 12 of Vreeland's most outrageous and stylish suggestions. Check back every week for new audacious advice. So, why don't you..." 

Harper's Bazaar did that round-up in 2014, and Diana Vreeland worked there from 1936 until 1962 and then at Vogue from 1962 to 1971. I got sidetracked into the topic of Diana Vreeland after blogging about the Vogue editorship passing from Anna Wintour to Chloe Malle. As I noted in the comments section to that earlier post, I had a job in the early 1970s that required me to read Vogue (among many other magazines) ever month. I was intensely aware that there had been an earlier era that was so much wilder and crazier.

But the pink bulletin board with thumbtacks seems within anyone's reach. I assume "pin with colored thumb-tacks all your various enthusiasms" means use colored thumb-tacks to pin up slips of paper upon which you've written words representing whatever you're currently feeling enthusiastic about.

"You hear the term 'slop' a lot now. There’s a good reason for that: A lot of janky internet content is being churned out with A.I., and slop..."

"... is a handy name for this. But there’s another phenomenon—not unconnected, but a little different—that I also think it’s worth getting a handle on. I’ve been thinking about it as 'slurry.' In the non-metaphorical world, slurry means an unresolved mix of liquid and solid; in agriculture, a thin mixture of manure and water. The word comes to mind with this very pervasive kind of content that’s gunking up my feed, where different content types are running together into one, half-resolved substance. Where everything assumes the qualities of everything else. It’s painters having to perform incongruously as influencers to get some attention for their work. It’s audio interviews, auto-transcribed and posted without any editing so that you get not only weird errors but also all the 'you knows' and 'uhms.' It’s long video essays chopped up into little incoherent bits and posted with gibbering subtitles. What these have in common is a feeling of clunkiness that comes when something originated in one medium and hasn’t quite been thought through for another...."

Writes Ben Davis, in "The Great Enslurrification of Culture/Rosalind Krauss's 'post-medium condition' comes for writing, and everything" (ArtNet).

"The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee quietly changed its eligibility rules on Monday to bar transgender women from competing in Olympic women’s sports..."

"... and now will comply with President Trump’s executive order on the issue, according to a post on the organization’s website. The new policy, expressed in a short, vaguely worded paragraph, is tucked under the category of 'USOPC Athlete Safety Policy' on the site, and does not include details of how the ban will work. Nor does the new policy include the word 'transgender' or the title of Mr. Trump’s executive order, 'Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,' referring to it instead as 'Executive Order 14201.'"

From "U.S. Olympic Officials Bar Transgender Women From Women’s Competitions/The U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee changed its eligibility rules on Monday to comply with President Trump’s executive order, taking the decision away from national governing bodies for each sport" (NYT).

Interesting language, especially "tucked under." It seems to evoke the effort of a biological man to pass as a woman. Did the NYT want us to see an analogy there? The U.S. Olympic Committee wants to look like it is what it wants to be. In this analogy, following Trump’s executive order corresponds to the male genitalia that must be "tucked under" and the look of female genitalia is achieved with the words "USOPC Athlete Safety Policy."

If that's not intentional, the editing at the NYT is incompetent/nonexistent. If it is intentional, it's hilarious and very very wrong.

"L.A. is ours, this is our city. This is what my morning walk turned into. They’re terrorizing our neighborhood."

Said Mikema Nahmir, who "said he was out for his morning walk at 11 a.m. when he saw two women running down the street yelling that 'la migra' was at MacArthur Park" and who "joined the group of protesters who chased and yelled after the military-style trucks."

Nahmir is quoted in "Heavily armed immigration agents descend on L.A.’s MacArthur Park" (L.A. Times)("Immigration agents in military green surrounded MacArthur Park as the convoy readied for a show of force akin to a Hollywood movie. They came with horses and armored vehicles, carrying rifles and in tactical gear in the middle of what is the heart of immigrant Los Angeles").

The phrase "carrying rifles and in tactical gear..." should be relocated next to the word "They" so that grammar mavens do not get distracted into efforts to craft a Grouchoesque how-he-got-in-my-pajamas joke out of the image of horses (and armored vehicles) carrying rifles and tactical gear. This is not an occasion for cheap linguistic jokes. There was a military show of power in MacArthur Park... like a striped pair of pants.

"For many veteran correspondents at '60 Minutes,' paying even $1 to settle a left-field lawsuit from an aggrieved president seemed too high a price."

"At stake, they believed, was the long-term credibility of the country’s most decorated and most-watched television news program, a journalistic institution since 1968 that prided itself on holding elected leaders to account. Late Tuesday, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, concluded differently. It agreed to pay $16 million so President Trump would drop a lawsuit that essentially boiled down to a politician’s gripe: that '60 Minutes' had edited an interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in a manner that he did not like. Many legal experts called Mr. Trump’s case frivolous and unwinnable, running counter to long-established First Amendment protections for the American press...."

From "For '60 Minutes,' a Humbling Moment at an Uneasy Time for Press Freedom/After an astonishing concession to a sitting president, the country’s most popular television news program faces the prospect of new ownership and a chilled environment for the First Amendment" (NYT).

"We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza."

 That's the official statement, quoted in "Trump leaves G-7 meeting early to deal with Mideast; signs group statement/Trump signed the G-7’s statement backing Israel and criticizing Iran after discussions with other leaders and changes to the initial draft, a U.S. official said" (WaPo).

There's something off about that sentence, and I don't think it's just that "leads" should be "lead." (Subjunctive, right?) I think "urge" seems wrong. 

Who is being urged? Isn't the right word "hope"? We hope that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East.... But to hope in this situation is too passive, and yet, what is going on here except passivity?

And what disturbs me most is that it seems as though they want to urge that there be a "de-escalation," but they are not urging the belligerents to de-escalate now. There's a precondition, "the resolution of the Iranian crisis." So it seems that they are urging that the crisis be resolved, and then hoping that when — if? — that happens, hostilities will de-escalate. That makes the most sense, but it says nothing about what the "resolution" is. The Iran crisis could be resolved through a complete military victory for Israel.

Finally, what is a "broader de-escalation of hostilities"? Hostilities have been escalating. The de-escalation has yet to begin. It's nonsense to speak of something that doesn't exist getting broader. And escalation and de-escalation are metaphors of height, not breadth. Pick one. "Broader de-escalation" also absurdly asks simultaneously for more and for less: We want wider shortness.

This sentence feels as though it began with many different words that have been swapped out for awkward substitutions. We're told Trump wouldn't sign the original draft. I'll bet that was better written, but the edited version we see won Trump's signature. Perhaps he wanted it to say nothing specifically discernible (other than "including a ceasefire in Gaza"). And perhaps he wanted to endorse military victory for Israel — AKA "the resolution of the Iranian crisis" — and didn't want or need to say it outright. He did get the others to sign onto that. 

"But that might be a mistake—as it turns out, many of those edible villains have earned their 'bad' wraps unfairly, and, according to recent studies, some of them might even be healthier for us than we initially thought."

Says the first sentence I read in this Vogue article Meade sent me — Meade sends me Vogue articles?! — "9 Foods That Are Healthier Than You Would Think."

That article is from March 2024, and no one has corrected the error yet?

I'm giving Vogue a "bad wrap" — perhaps a tainted burrito or a scruffy mink stole.

By the way, these 9 foods are healthier than I "would think" if I hadn't already read numerous articles touting potatoes, eggs, coffee, butter, cheese, whole milk, nuts, chocolate, and fatty fish. 

"But I think the meta text of why it was so shocking was all of the people that were waved off as conspiracy theorists. Right wing fever swamp people were completely right."

"Were a hundred percent right. They were completely right. And the people who, you know, even now, you know, you still hope they're telling the truth. Like maybe we can trust some of what they say they were this profoundly wrong. I think that is like the, the deeper layer of the shock."

Says Bari Weiss, somewhat babblingly. 

Jake Tapper, who has more reason to babble, speaks eloquently:

"The sentence, dull but clear, was buried 158 pages into Wisconsin’s budget. 'For the limit for the 2023-24 school year and the 2024-25 school year,' the sentence read..."

"... when it was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature, 'add $325' to the amount school districts could generate through property taxes for each student. But by the time Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, and his veto pen were finished, it said something else entirely: 'For the limit for 2023-2425, add $325.' It was clever. Creative. Perhaps even a bit subversive, extending the increase four centuries longer than lawmakers intended. But was it legal? On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said yes. In a 4-to-3 ruling in a lawsuit challenging Mr. Evers’s use of his partial veto authority, the court’s liberal majority said the governor had acted legally. The three conservative justices on the court dissented...."

From "Wisconsin Supreme Court Says Governor’s 400-Year Edit Was Within Veto Authority/Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, used his veto power to increase school funding limits for four centuries longer than Republican lawmakers in the state had intended" (NYT).

Let's read a WaPo columnist who hasn't quit in disgust after Jeff Bezos announced he was taking the opinion pages in a right-wing direction..

Here's Bezos's ballsy statement (on X).

Who has quit? You can read "Jeff Bezos' revamp of 'Washington Post' opinions leads editor to quit" (NPR).

I'm most interested in who is staying, and how they might be changing. In that light, I'm reading this, from Philip Bump, published this morning: "The shift in the politics of young voters isn’t quite what it seems/The idea that MAGA-enthused bros swung the young male vote doesn’t really capture what happened."

That's a free-access link and it's very heavy on poll data. I won't attempt to summarize that other than to quote Bump's bottom line: "The problem for Democrats, then, was probably fewer White dudes listening to Joe Rogan than it was Black and Hispanic voters not voting like their parents."

Bezos should hire some good word editors, because that sentence is miswritten, probably by someone bamboozled by the "less"/"fewer" distinction. I think it needs to be something more like: "The problem for Democrats, then, was probably less about White dudes listening to Joe Rogan and more about Black and Hispanic voters not voting like their parents." 

I'm not saying I've turned that into a well-written sentence, only that I've made it comprehensible (and I hope it means what Bump meant to say).

"As [Janet] Malcolm moves through drafty kitchens, Indian restaurants and train rides through the damp English countryside, she turns each biographer and figure in [Sylvia] Plath’s life into a character."

"She exposes the motives and agendas and prejudices at the heart of the Plath industry. She brilliantly indicts the whole enterprise of biography itself, comparing biographers to burglars rifling through people’s drawers.... She emphasizes the total impossibility of ever knowing the truth of another person’s life.... At one point, she gave the unfinished manuscript of 'The Silent Woman' to Philip Roth. He gave it a slashing edit, with often nasty comments in the margins. He violently disapproved of her putting herself in as a character. He hated her metaphors and accused her of intellectual shallowness. Another writer might have been crushed or paralyzed, but Malcolm simply addressed what she thought were the few useful parts of his criticism and put aside the rest. She scribbled playful and defiant responses to his edits in the margins: 'What’s bugging you, Philip? she said, with a sad shake of her head.' Later, in an unpublished interview, she said, 'I didn’t accept his dislike of the book.' Some of his crankiness, she thought, arose from being a man of the 1950s reading about the female experience.... To take this incident with equanimity, to not let it undermine either her friendship or her manuscript, requires a very expansive and shockingly healthy sense of self...."

Writes Katie Roiphe, in "Janet Malcolm Understood the Power of Not Being 'Nice'/The writer is remembered, above all, for her ruthlessness. But when I went looking for it, I found something much more complicated" (NYT).

"The Silent Woman" — commission earned — came out in 1995.

Have you ever endured a serious edit from someone you had to respect? Some writers fear even putting themselves in the position of needing to see one. Have you ever given one or offered to give one and had the writer miss what you thought was the chance to step up to a higher level? It's a painful process, editing. So says the blogger.

"During my first 24 years at the Times, from 2000 to 2024, I faced very few editorial constraints on how and what I wrote...."

"[T]he editing was very light... even when I took positions that made Times leadership very nervous.... [T]he columns themselves were published as I wrote them.... Then, step by step, all the things that made writing at the Times worthwhile for me were taken away.... [I]n 2024, the editing of my regular columns went from light touch to extremely intrusive... toning down, introducing unnecessary qualifiers, and, as I saw it, false equivalence. I would rewrite the rewrites to restore the essence of my original argument.... ... I was putting more effort—especially emotional energy—into fixing editorial damage than I was into writing the original articles. And the end result of the back and forth often felt flat and colorless....  [W]hat I felt during my final year at the Times was a push toward blandness, toward avoiding saying anything too directly in a way that might get some people (particularly on the right) riled up. I guess my question is, if those are the ground rules, why even bother having an opinion section?"

Writes Paul Krugman, in "Departing the New York Times/I left to stay true to my byline" (The Contrarian).

What's going on there? Who wants blandly written columns? That doesn't solve any problem I'm aware of.

"A picture of young successful happy people at a trendy cocktail party reads as right wing. A picture of a dad in flannel drinking a beer at Texas Roadhouse..."

"... also reads as right wing. Right wing is both cool, hip and metropolitan, and down to earth, older, mature, and working class. This is how you know that conservatism is culturally ascendant. We run the gamut. The only pictures that read as left wing are those of ugly, fat, mentally ill, dysfunctional, friend-less weirdos."

So says Matt Walsh, on X, looking at the "Cruel Kids" New York Magazine cover. 

 

That's one take. The other take is that the photo is cropped to make the event look all white. If you scroll down from that link above, you'll many tweets that should the wider view (and call attention to the text, "Have you noticed that the entire room is white?):

"If writing requires a person to store information using multiple types of working memory at the same time..."

"... then back-and-forth conversations with ChatGPT may provide moments of respite, by temporarily offloading some of this information.... So even seemingly unproductive interactions might provide the subtle benefit of increasing your over-all writing stamina. Collaborating with A.I. can also offer you a high-tech 'shitty first draft,' allowing you to spend more time editing bad text and less time trying to craft good text from scratch. ChatGPT is not so much writing for you as generating a mental state that helps you produce better writing.... A.I. isn’t writing on our behalf, but neither is it merely supporting us while we write from scratch; it sits somewhere in between. In this way, it is both on the spectrum of writing hacks and rituals and also, in some sense, beyond it. This helps to explain our discomfort with the technology. We’re used to writers moving to a quiet location or using a special pen to help get their creative juices flowing. We’re not yet used to the idea that they might chat with a computer program to release cognitive strain, or ask the program for a rough draft to help generate mental momentum...."

Writes Cal Newport, in "What Kind of Writer Is ChatGPT? Chatbots have been criticized as perfect plagiarism tools. The truth is more surprising" (The New Yorker).

Struggling to write the final line to his essay, Newport asked ChatGPT. It offered: "In the end, the true value of tools like ChatGPT lies not in making academic work easier, but in empowering students to engage more deeply with their ideas and express them with greater confidence."

I quoted that last line and asked ChatGPT to write a 1 or 2 sentence blog post reacting to it. I got: "This perspective highlights the transformative potential of tools like ChatGPT, not as shortcuts, but as catalysts for deeper intellectual engagement and self-expression. Embracing technology in this way can truly empower students to explore their ideas with newfound confidence and creativity."

Bleh.

"[Trump] would fire the absolute wrong person.... [He] had no idea what was going on, and he would just make something up."

"He just had to choose a name... And maybe that was the only name he remembered of the people sitting around.... Our job then was to reverse engineer the show and to make him not look like a complete moron.... to make the person who he fired look not as good."

Said Jonathon Braun, who was a producer on "The Apprentice" (and on "Survivor"), quoted in "The Star-Making Machine That Created ‘Donald Trump’/The inside story of how the producers of 'The Apprentice' crafted a TV version of Mr. Trump — measured, thoughtful and endlessly wealthy — that ultimately fueled his path to the White House" (NYT).

The article is adapted from the book "Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success," by NYT reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig.

Isn't selective editing like that the norm in these competitive reality shows? I remember reading Television Without Pity contemporaneously with those old "Survivor" and "Apprentice" episodes, because sophisticated fans enjoyed watching the show and analyzing the edit. The ultimate winner would get a "hero's edit," and the loser's mistakes would be highlighted. The show had to make sense, but still keep you guessing. That was the method, already developed on "Survivor," but here's Braun trying to impose an interpretation of Trump by selectively presenting his observations — editing! As if Trump was a special sort of bungler, and the editors were covering for him. Trump did the show brilliantly. By the way, what about Jeff Probst? Does he watch the rough footage before he conducts the "tribal council" on "Survivor," or are the editors making him look more savvy than he is? And how would you badmouth Probst if he were running for President?