Monthly Archives: September 2005

Michael Roberts, fashionably


Suzy Menkes in the International Herald Tribune:

An unsung fashion hero has finally been recognized as Michael Roberts, illustrator, editor, style director and maverick takes his book on tour. On Tuesday, Burberry will fete the British-born Roberts, whose trajectory from art school in High Wycombe in 1968 to the swinging London world of Carnaby Street and Kings Road, to fashion editor of The Sunday Times and today’s role at the New Yorker, was as arrow-straight as the graphic lines in his illustrated book.

The Snippy World of New Yorker Fashion Artist Michael Roberts, published by Steid/Edition 7L, tells the story in its title. It is both an intricate assemblage of collages, done, says Roberts “mostly in hotel rooms;” and a wry and sometimes scissor-sharp take on the world of style. You would have to look to Cecil Beaton’s very different decorative sketches to find someone with such a beady eye for what makes style. Even the skyscrapers of New York take on a dizzy geometric glamour, as Roberts fixes each image in the context of its time.

At fashion’s epicenter, yet always a lone observer, Roberts has a unique insight into the fashionable world, which he reduces, like Cocteau, to a few sparing lines. New York features large, although he is ambivalent about its attractions.

“I feel most attracted and repelled about New York,” he says. “There is no strong guiding aesthetic. Everything is for the moment.”

Fascinating! More. And here’s the Globe and Mail review, which calls Roberts “a ludicrously multitalented guy.”

(9.19.05 issue) Do you hear what blogosphere?

Here’s a nice, concise comment on last week’s White House Aswim cover art, from Arse Poetica (funny name, too). Sometimes brevity is the soul of blog.

My inspiring father continues to write about the Roberts nomination, and a good thing, too.

And because I’m a gentleman, or would be if I were a man—and sometimes I wonder, given my inconvenient intolerance for Rules Girl–like behavior—I tip my hat in greeeting to my new colleague in New Yorker observation, I Hate The New Yorker, who, as my genial rival, has already pointed out a broken link. Ahoy there, comrade! Seems like an interesting, smart Pittsburghian, and perhaps someday we can have a friendly debate. Or, better, a Grease/Rebel Without a Cause drag race where he’s Anthony Lane’s second and I’m David Denby’s. There’s something really great about that scenario. Who would be the pneumatic, shopworn girl with the silk scarf who starts the race? Or the studly boy? Having recently immersed myself in much of the wonderfully wounding first/only season of Freaks and Geeks, I think I’ve got to say Nick Andopolis. We never really get over the sweet drummer-stoners.

And, whoa, speaking of which—I just noticed that I Hate the New Yorker has been watching F&G as well. Spooky. We’re bound to see eye to eye on a few things, but I’ll be spending some time under the hood of Greased Lightning, so I’m ready just in case there’s a rumble.

Exhaustion + Google Alerts + Grab = post!


You want that Paris link, don’t you? OK, here. The New Yorker piece too? I’m afraid it’s not online. But lots of other things are, so here’s the September 26, 2005 TOC. Emdashes quiz: Find the two, count ’em two, references to the movie Gone With the Wind in the table of contents alone!

I’ll be blogging the New Yorker Festival over at Beatrice this weekend, by the way. It’s going to be a whole lot of fun, particularly since I hope to sleep before then. Seeing Steve Martin playing banjo with Earl Scruggs has a great chance of being the high point of my life thus far, and since I’m not one of those irony-addled sorts who insist they’ve never liked anything all that much as far as they know, except maybe Curb Your Enthusiasm, you can be sure I mean it.

I can hear the heart beating as one

A sneak preview of the New Yorker archive.

Because what you are seeing here is a search page from the New Yorker archive DVD set. And on my laptop, yet, which arrived home last night, bloodied but unbowed, from the costly war against itself. Hallelujah. I’m also happy to report it works slightly better on Macs than on PCs, so far. I remain a loyal Applist, despite my recent suffering.

Writers Are Freaks

A writer enjoying a rare moment of self-satisfaction.

And I should know. I wonder why, mid-deadline, it often takes seeing one’s own byline to remind one (me, that is) that one does, in fact, often write? Well, here’s the byline, a review in tomorrow’s Newsday of David Rakoff’s spiffy new essay collection, Don’t Get Too Comfortable. Yes, he’s right, don’t! Why couldn’t I have done something more sensible with my life, like…Po Bronson, help me out here. I think the corny, true answer is: I like writing. As Dorothy Parker said, I love having written. There you are. You might as well live.

So What Do You Do to Write a Winning Caption, Evan Butterfield?


evanpic
(c) Gahan Wilson and The New Yorker

It’s time for another caption contest interview! Meet the charming Evan Butterfield from the great city of Chicago, whose caption for this cheerfully off-kilter Gahan Wilson drawing—”Well, it’s a lovely gesture, but I still think we should start seeing other people”—is pitch-perfect and the rightful winner. We discussed head tattoos, their potential impact on burgeoning relationships, and other issues of the day.

What do you think the people in Gahan Wilson’s drawing are eating and drinking?

I think they’re in a perfectly acceptable, slightly overpriced and just barely overcrowded little restaurant that’s been there for as long as anyone can remember (and whose untouched historic décor, considered Elegant in the early ’50s, is sorely in need of a little touching). They are sort of enjoying a moderately priced wine that’s not going to astonish anyone, but that isn’t going to make anyone’s pancreas dissolve either. They are, however, thoroughly enjoying the soup, which is one of the reasons the place has lasted so long. It may be a hearty gazpacho, but I tend to think it’s more brothy, with little slivers of vegetables.

Who do you think did the man’s head tattoo? What drove him to it?

The head tattoo was drawn by one of the artists at Charming Stan’s Flaming Dragon Body Art & Part Piercing. It was very much unlike the otherwise quiet, mild-mannered man to go there, but once he had the idea it became an obsession, and he forced himself to go to an unfamiliar and vaguely scary neighborhood. He showed a picture of the woman to the first available artist, a young lady named Ja3leen who had had herself intricately tattooed into a zoetrope: when she spun around rapidly, a cowboy appeared to be riding a buffalo across her body. The man had, for some time, felt (with considerable panic) that the woman’s affection for him had started to cool. Desperate to salvage their two-month-old relationship, he felt that only a dramatic, romantic gesture that clearly declared his undying love would force her to understand the depths of his love, something that clearly and publicly showed that his intentions were true, deep, and permanent. Her name on his pale bicep (such as it was) would be pedestrian. Then he noticed the vast canvas of his head, and it all became clear. Ja3leen at Charming Stan’s was delighted to oblige, and more than sufficiently skilled.

Were you a fan of Wilson previously? Who are your favorite New Yorker artists? Writers?

Oh lord yes—I’ve always loved Wilson’s cartoons. There’s something about his wiggly, linear style that really appeals to me, and his odd world is the one I happen to live in. (He’s similar in some ways to Charles Addams, but more consciously ironic and without the sort of, oh, “domestic” quality Addams has—Addams is about weird people in the normal world; Wilson’s world is just slightly warped.) Did that make any sense at all? Bottom line, Wilson is my favorite New Yorker cartoonist, although Art Spiegelman appeals on a different level, and Roz Chast is a total hoot. What you need to understand about my relationship with The New Yorker is that I mostly don’t play favorites. The magazine has managed, over the twenty years or so I’ve been a subscriber (never mind how old I am, thank you. I’m sure I started subscribing as a tiny toddler), to publish very little that I didn’t find interesting, compelling, or at the very least readable. It’s a remarkable feat, that even an article on a subject that I immediately say “ick” to, will nonetheless turn out to be, if not fascinating, at least worthwhile. That said, I’ll read anything by Seymour Hersh or any of the other political writers; Dan Halpern’s profile of Kinky Friedman (another favorite writer) was wonderful. I think that Tina Brown made a slightly fading magazine more vibrant and relevant; that said, I’m also glad she’s moved on. And I think the single-advertiser Target issue was clever in a commercial sort of way and not an unforgiveable crime against humanity.

Is this the first caption contest you’ve entered? Your first contest of any kind?

This is the second caption contest I submitted to. (In the interests of airing my dismal failures as well as celebrating my momentary wonderfulness, I suggested “Go back to sleep, you’re always hearing things.” for #7, with the earth outside the couple’s window and the wife looking alarmed.) I think it’s a wonderful new feature, because New Yorker readers are a pretty creative bunch for the most part, and this is a good outlet. Also, it creates a sort of community by involving readers directly in a creative effort. (I’m also unutterably pleased that my fifteen words now permit me to casually announce to people that I have been published in The New Yorker.) I don’t generally enter contests, and I think this is the first one I’ve entered and won. It’s quite exciting, really. I have been e-mailed by people I don’t know, asking if I’m the Evan Butterfield whose caption is in the magazine, and have received a couple of late-night prank phone calls from some disappointing subscribers. I’d’ve expected better behavior from New Yorker readers. Anyway, I will continue to pester the editors at The New Yorker with captions, because it amuses me. Oh—here’s an interesting thing: I was called by a New Yorker staff person who told me my caption had been selected as one of the three finalists, but I was not called regarding my glorious victory—thanks and waves to all who voted for me. I have no idea when to expect my prize. It’s a very mysterious system, really.

What’s been your favorite caption, out of all the contenders, in the contest so far?

Well mine, obviously, because it’s just so brilliant on so many levels. However, I also especially liked numbers 14, 13, 10, 9, and 1. I voted for 14 and 13; the others predate my active involvement with the caption contest. I have no idea why it took so long for me to jump in.

How are things in Chicago?

I love Chicago. I encourage everyone to visit and be astonished. The lake is lovely, the skyline is breathtaking, and the weather just now is perfection itself. We have lovely beaches and parks, and excellent architecture (although we’re about
to have a Trump thing inflicted on us). We get to see the hot musicals before they’re any good (you New Yorkers totally missed out on some of the longest, dreariest, and most un-funny elements of The Producers and Spamalot, poor yous). Our city council just demanded an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (that’ll do it) and is debating whether or not to ban pâté de foie gras because it’s mean to geese. Our mayor, Richard Daley, is having some corruption scandals, but we must all remember that it was he who had huge planters filled with prairie grasses and wildflowers plunked down the middle of the financial district and on top of City Hall, and who, having planted trees in the middle of Lake Shore Drive, has the speed limit lowered every winter so they don’t get salt splashed on them. Did I mention I love it here?

Where are you going to hang the framed print?

I hadn’t thought about that. Possibly at work, since I’ve pestered everyone there with the news of my great victory. On the other hand, there’s a bare spot in my hallway where it might feature nicely. I’m open to suggestions.

Did you base your caption on any personal breakup experiences?

Good heavens, no!

Do you know anyone who would consider this a nice gesture?

Absolutely not. In fact, everyone who’s seen it has had the same reaction: they would consider someone tattooing their face on his or her head to be a rather large-ish red flag and would run as quickly as their little legs could carry them.

Do you have any tattoos, and if so, are they of people who might recognize themselves? Would they be flattered or distressed?

Sadly, I have no tattoos, although I have been known to draw on myself with a pen sometimes. If I were to get a tattoo it would probably tend to be something a bit more abstract than a likeness: I have a tremendous fear of doing something permanent to myself that becomes suddenly outdated and unstylish. We can’t have that.

At your job, would they discourage head tattoos? How might one cover up if one had already gotten one as a tribute to one’s beloved?

Well, (a), yes, I believe that even my relatively tolerant publishing company would look askance at forehead art for fear it would frighten the occasional visiting author. Is that right? Probably not, but such is life in corporate America. As for (b), I suppose one could cover it with artfully arranged bangs—sort of a sweeping, ’70s-style forehead swoop à la John Davidson would do the trick, or a low-sitting hat of some sort. A Post-It note would also work, and you could put little messages on it like “Why are you looking at my forehead?” or “No head tattoos here!” Possibly an eye patch worn a bit high. There are many fashionable alternatives.

What’s your relationship to your name? For me, it conjures up a lush field full of pats of butter, which is my vision of the afterlife if all goes especially well.

I’m delighted to have brought you to the brink of death for a wee peek at the other side. You’re hardly the first. My relationship to my name goes back a number of years; I’ve had it almost all my life. When I was considerably younger I found it annoying, and for a time tried using my middle name instead, but I couldn’t take it seriously (it’s “Matthew”, in homage not to any biblical figures but to Matt Dillon—and not the actor, but the TV sheriff. Thanks, Dad). I suppose I’ve gotten used to it, now. In fact, when my children were born (to quote another New Yorker cartoon, “I have two children by a previous sexuality”), I desperately wanted to name them Robert and Elizabeth, so that they would be Bob Butterfield and Betty Butterfield (maybe Robert would turn out to be toughish, and then he could be “Bob ‘Buster’ Butterfield,” which would send me into fits of giggling). My then-wife was less alliteratively inclined, and that probably turned out for the best. I am not related to any jazz musicians or Watergate figures so far as I know. I am related to a Civil War general, Daniel Butterfield, who composed “Taps” and whose spurs lie in state at Arlington Cemetery’s visitor center. I believe my fame now rivals his, however.

Do you think that if our hero had gone ahead and had his girlfriend’s entire body tattooed on him instead, she would have stayed?

I think she was horrified enough by the face thing. On the other hand, if he’d had it done so that she appeared to dance when he raised his eyebrows, that might just be a classy enough gesture to have won her heart.

Evan Butterfield, encore!
Self-portrait.


***

Other Emdashes caption-contest interviews:

  • Robert Gray, winner #106 (“Have you considered writing this story in the third monkey rather than the first monkey?”)
  • David Kempler, winner #100 (“Don’t tell Noah about the vasectomy.”)
  • David Wilkner, winner #99 (“I’d like to get your arrow count down.”)
  • Richard Hine, winner #98 (“When you’re finished here, Spencer, we’ll need you on the bridge-to-nowhere project.”)
  • Carl Gable, winner #40 (“Hmm. What rhymes with layoffs?”)
  • T.C. Boyle, winner #29 (“And in this section it appears that you have not only alienated voters but actually infected them, too.”)
  • Adam Szymkowicz (“Shut up, Bob, everyone knows your parrot’s a clip-on”), winner #27, and cartoonist Drew Dernavich interview each other in three parts: One, Clip-On Parrots and Doppelgangers; Two, Adam and Drew, Pt. Two; Three, Clip-On Parrots’ Revenge
  • Jan Richardson, winner #8 (“He’s the cutest little thing, and when you get tired of him you just flush him down the toilet.”)
  • Roy Futterman, winner #1 (“More important, however, is what I learned about myself.”)

A healing Baum

The magazine is providing some of the best New Orleans coverage I’ve seen so far, especially from the hardworking, empathetic Dan Baum in Talk. All his pieces so far are riveting contributions that are a serious pleasure to read as well, and I hope he’s working on a feature-length story. This is sound, un-self-aggrandizing, and entertaining journalism—hell, writing—and I admire it.

Meanwhile, the Target-sponsored issue turns out not to be such a big deal, at least according to the American Society of Magazine Editors, which elected to give The New Yorker a little dressing-down (as it were) but nothing more serious. From AdAge:

After a regularly scheduled board meeting this afternoon, the society issued a statement that said, “Our guidelines do call for a publisher’s note to readers in single-advertiser issues, and The New Yorker has agreed to include such a note when and if they do this again.”

Predictably, and as you know I do like a little predictability, Lewis Lazare is very maaaaaad about that. I’ve come to think of him as a friend, really. It’s good to see people caring so much about the magazine that they raise their blood pressure to a Targety red on its behalf. AdAge ads:

In a column last week, Mr. Lazare called today’s ASME meeting and its action or inaction regarding the issue a potentially “defining moment” in its history.

Many editors and advertisers have disagreed, calling the issue as a masterstroke of magazine advertising that did not breach the boundary between ads and editorial.

Others have more or less shrugged, suggesting that the publishing industry faces bigger issues, like rising advertiser demands for a print version of product placement. ASME is still in the process of revising its guidelines to address such activities; its new guidelines are expected to be released at the American Magazine Conference next month.

Porch Duty [Dan Baum, New Yorker]
On the Roof [Baum, New Yorker]
Kajun’s [Baum, New Yorker]
Interview with Baum [for Smoke and Mirrors; levity.com]

The orchid, the thief, his life, & those writers

In last weekend’s Guardian, Andrew Pulver compares the book—Susan Orlean’s The Orchid Thief, that is—with Adaptation in the paper’s “Writer’s Credit” series.

And just for good crumpety measure, here’s a meditation on the latest version of Pride & Prejudice, also from the Guardian. (“It is a truth universally acknowledged that some people just don’t get Jane Austen, can’t see the point of her, would rather read the Yellow Pages. Not all of these sorry souls are troglodytes.”…) I’m still getting over the blandly chatty, spotty stars in the American-friendly early trailer; they seem to have been clearasiled up in past weeks, if I’m not mistaken.

A blogger’s first birthday

Toast-O-Lator, 1936-52 (?)

as a blogger: That’s me, so I’ll indulge myself with a rare Poysonal Reflection. Per my best friend, Jennifer Hadley, the creator of the comely logo above that you look at daily, and which, Explorer users, is properly centered in every other browser: “Don’t worry, 34 is another year of being a young, blithering idiot, I assure you.” I suspect she’s right, since she usually is.

I’d also like to say, at the end of a computer fiasco I’ll be delighted to forget as soon as possible: To everyone at Mikey’s Hook-Up, Tekserve, the Apple Genius Bar (when can I get a Men of Apple SoHo calendar, I wonder?), David Pogue (whose own data fiasco inspired him to post this essential guide to backing up), DriveSavers, and especially my kind friends and fantastic family, you are all dear, generous, and beloved people.

My goodwill birthday message to all you good readers, and in particular all writers of every description: Back up constantly, because it can be a very ouchy experience otherwise. You will thank me, but you don’t have to. Just knowing you’re backed up will satisfy.

Pictured: Toast-O-Lator.

From Louisiana University Press

This seems like an excellent time to buy the great A.J. Liebling’s book The Earl of Louisiana. Says the press:

In the summer of 1959, A. J. Liebling, veteran writer for the New Yorker, came to Louisiana to cover a series of bizarre events that began when Governor Earl K. Long was committed to a mental institution. Captivated by his subject, Liebling remained to write the fascinating yet tragic story of “Uncle Earl’s” final year in politics. First published in 1961, The Earl of Louisiana recreates a stormy era in Louisiana politics and captures the style and personality of one of the most colorful and paradoxical figures in the state’s history. This edition of the book includes a foreword by T. Harry Williams, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Huey Long: A Biography.

Jonathan Yardley wrote in the Washington Post:

Turn to the opening sentences of A. J. Liebling’s The Earl of Louisiana and three things happen. You are dazzled by the wit and acuity of Liebling’s prose, you want to keep reading for as long as he keeps writing, and you are struck by how deeply the character of American politics has changed in the four-plus decades since The Earl of Louisiana was first published…. [It] is best read today as an evocation of Louisiana before it fell victim to the inevitable forces of homogenization, as a portrait of a distinctive and unexpectedly endearing man who scarcely deserves the ridicule that has become his lot and—this above all—as an opportunity to read a few words from the typewriter of the one and only A. J. Liebling…. One of the best books ever written about American politics.

Here it is on Amazon and Powell’s.