Not exactly Irvin Type—not Irvin Type at all—but Irvin-related: artist Daniel Adel‘s amphibian version of the original (tongue-in-cheek, etc.) E.T. Adel has actually contributed to The New Yorker, so as you can see, it’s a meta-Quaker Oats, post-postmodern Circle Game moment for me. Thanks to the multitalented Newyorkette (who reviews a giant history of Vogue in the new issue of PRINT) for the tip!
And now for the fairness and balance for which Emdashes is known: Here’s someone’s story about cranky readers of the magazine. I’d be cranky too if someone did to me what this person claims to have done to someone’s blissful magazine-reading experience, and if I ever catch them doing it, I’ll show them what real crankiness looks like!
For the record, I don’t believe for a second that any New Yorker readers are shoving people on the subway. I think they’re absorbed and distracted, dulling the pain of their stifling routine with mesmerizing (if horrifying) pieces about our impending water catastrophe; also funny cartoons. You should try it sometime, haughty nose-thumber of the “intelligentsia.” It really helps!
Monthly Archives: October 2006
Guest Review: “Maeve Brennan: Homesick at The New Yorker”
Special to Emdashes: “Smart Set” and Lux Lotus-er Lauren Cerand reviews a biography of Brennan, a New Yorker great who had a sad decline. I just finished Gardner Botsford’s glorious (and sometimes grim) A Life of Privilege, Mostly; he devotes several pages to Brennan and reprints a few of her hilarious, sassy letters. This biography, plus her collected writing, is now a priority. If you’ve digested a book, seen a play, taken in a movie, viewed a painting, or, God love you, read a poem about The New Yorker or a related figure or event (and that’s a long list), email me with your thoughts; if I like them, I’ll print them.

Maeve Brennan: Homesick at The New Yorker: An Irish Writer In Exile, by Angela Bourke, illuminates an overlooked life with expansive perspective and a sympathetic touch. The book unfolds with a fascinating section on the lives of Brennan’s parents, whose shared Irish roots and early political activism colored her life in Ireland and later America. Erudite, elegant, and achingly sharp, Brennan is exactly the sort of writer who, had she been a man, would have benefited enormously from having a wife. Instead, she had The New Yorker. Bourke’s study is filled with anecdotes of the magazine and stories of the community among its writers—sometimes sweet, often scandalous—which gives it a sense of being as much a history of The New Yorker as of Brennan herself. Tightly structured around a dazzling narrative thread that follows Brennan’s precocious streak as it matures into ethereal style and a penchant for revolutionary nonconformity before tumbling helplessly into eccentricity and finally mental illness, Homesick at The New Yorker uses letters, interviews, and lengthy excerpts of Brennan’s own criminally overlooked fiction and commentary to breath fresh air into a story with plenty of life left in it yet. Highly recommended.
Lauren Cerand writes about art, politics and style in New York.
Still More Banned Words and Phrases
7. kid lit
8. lad lit
9. chick lit
10. Sick-Chick Lit
11. tween
Banned words and phrases 1-3 and 4-6.
Review: “Charles Addams: A Cartoonist’s Life” (Newsday)
A Cartoonist’s Quirky Life
BY EMILY GORDON
Special to Newsday
October 22, 2006
CHARLES ADDAMS: A Cartoonist’s Life, by Linda H. Davis. Random House, 382 pp., $29.95.
A celebrity cartoonist should be sure of these essentials: steady work, true love, a good dog, a stylish car and a clever lawyer.
Charles Addams, the iconic and much-beloved New Yorker artist whose work made a successful crossover to television and movies, had all those things — although more often than not, the lawyer had some deft maneuvering to do so the work, the spouse and the true love didn’t collide.
Linda H. Davis’ chronicle of Addams’ rowdy, randy life and times is a bouillabaisse of a biography, and there will be plenty of tidbits for anyone who loves Addams’ meticulously rendered, sinister drawings, the “Addams Family” franchise, or both. It’s also a tale of a time that will seem magically archaic to many modern readers, for whom this will be a foreign sentence: “Looking as stylish as a film star, she seemed to relish her public role as the cartoonist’s wife, which included posing for photographers and socializing with Hollywood royalty, including the Alfred Hitchcocks.”
Indeed, Davis’ book is a valentine as much to Addams’ genius for romance as to his draftsmanship, as well as a sometimes wincingly amusing testament to the hazards of marriage between highly dramatic people.
“But let Steinberg intellectualize,” writes Davis near the end of the book, after noting fellow artist Saul Steinberg’s insight about how Addams may have incorporated his strong feelings about modern architecture into his cartoons. And while she does engage in some close reading of Addams’ subjects and drawing style, she chooses to focus instead on the province of his peculiar and appealing form of domesticity.
Addams’ New York Confidential story begins with kind first wife Barbara Jean Day, succeeded by the gorgeous (there are photos) Barbara Barb, who creatively worked her way into a high-end law career and into Addams’ life and never quite got out of it; a canny attorney, she found ways to profit from and meddle in his work long after their almost campily dramatic divorce. Her equal in resolve was Harriet Pilpel, not a lover but his trusty lawyer, who seems to have dedicated much of her life to saving Addams from one terrible financial error (usually in the form of a Barbara Barb scheme) after another. That triangle, properly and intelligently filmed, could easily join “Capote” and “Joe Gould’s Secret” in the rank of great New Yorker movies.
Addams, who appears to have been able to see innumerable women at once (at one dinner party, he “switched beautiful women over cocktails”), also dated, at various times, Veronica Lake, Jackie Kennedy, Greta Garbo, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” inspiration Doris Lilly and Joan Fontaine. He finally married his great love, the formidable Tee Davie, who put up with him but let him know she was no fool.
It would be a mistake not to include Addams’ favorite dog, Alice, and Sam Cobean, Addams’ war buddy and fellow cartoonist, in this romantic list; Cobean’s death in a car crash seems to have hit Addams harder than Davis even explores. It seems a fitting tribute to their zany and generous friendship that the book reproduces some very funny and blue caricatures by Cobean of a big-nosed Addams at his most impish.
A necessary chronicle of the cartoonist’s life, this is a quirky one, too, and there are some mysterious gaps. Davis (who is also New Yorker editor Katharine S. White’s biographer) skims over Addams’ literary taste, his politics (Democrat, then Republican) and “a violent attack on his own life,” as well as a diagnosis of diabetes, all elements that surely influenced his work in some way. Davis barely mentions Addams’ depression and possible suicidal thoughts (“[Brendan] Gill served up the old apocryphal tales about the cartoonist’s mental breakdowns,” she writes evasively, but doesn’t elaborate).
Davis pursued the facts of Addams’ life with the seemingly enthusiastic cooperation of Tee, a collaboration that Davis reassures readers caused no undue bias. While there’s a whiff of source-pleasing to the book, intimacy with sources has its advantages. While the biography does not come across as strictly evenhanded, it benefits from Davis’ access to the smallest documents, from rare sketches to obscure letters to a datebook in which Jackie Kennedy has scrawled tender jokes.
In the end, perhaps love and lawyers (and paychecks) really are the stories of our lives. Davis knows and demonstrates — uncommon in a star biography — that every life intertwines with no end of other complete, often equally fascinating ones. Addams, a big personality, collected enough other big personalities around him to fill dozens of books. We’re lucky to have this one.
Emily Gordon is the editor of Emdashes.com, a blog about The New Yorker.
Like a Child, You Whisper Softly to Me
(I don’t want to push the librarians off the homepage just yet, so here’s a later Friday update.) In my darling hometown alternative paper, the Madison Isthmus, P.S. Mueller dishes on what it’s like to be in The Rejection Collection and on traveling with the likes of Matt Diffee, cartooning for The New Yorker, and what kind of graphic novel he’d be if he were a graphic novel.
Adam Gopnik’s new book is out, so there are reviews aplenty: in the Seattle Times and The New York Times, for instance. The quick-footed reporter from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer landed the interview.
The Times (of New York) recently printed a sort of Civil War list of the dead of closed New York bookstores, including the New Yorker Bookshop but not, for some reason, the late Endicott of Columbus Avenue, which was always my favorite. Jurgen Habermas, my elbow. (That goes double for you, Joan Didion! You should know better!) Lest you forget this is an ongoing erosion, this is a very recent Yahoo article: “Indie Bookstores Fight Chains, Internet.” Here’s someone’s bookstore hall of fame; all the stores are squeaking, Save us! Also, as Book Sense’s Carl Lennertz told the Voice in 2002, “Why does the press only write about independents when they’re about to close?” The esssay by Ed Park about the life of New York’s small bookshops is worth reading.
Speaking of the world going to the dogs, the New Statesman declares quite rightly, “Give Poetry Back to People“:
More people write poetry than go to football matches, and poetry is popular in schools, at festivals and at the hundreds of readings staged every week in pubs, theatres, arts centres and even people’s homes. Poetry has reached a wider audience through films, radio, television and the internet, as well as through initiatives such as London’s Poems on the Underground, which has been imitated around the world. More people than ever believe, as Jackie Kay wrote in her National Poetry Day blog, that “poetry makes us think about who we are”.
…
Readers don’t have access to the diverse range of work being produced, not just in Britain, but from around the world, because much of the poetry establishment is narrowly based, male- dominated, white Anglocentric and skewed by factions and vested interests. Too often, poetry editors think of themselves and their poet friends as the arbiters of taste, selecting only writers they think people ought to read. They are unresponsive to much poetry by women (who comprise more than two-thirds of poetry’s readership) as well as to writing from Britain’s rapidly growing ethnic minorities. Ignoring the readership would be commercial suicide in any other field, but this malpractice in poetry publishing and reviewing has survived into the 21st century thanks to “academic protectionism”. This is something that has also tainted poetry reviewing: the few reviews that do appear are mostly of books by the same small group of mostly male, white British poets who also judge the main poetry prizes and are often either poetry editors or academics in university departments of English or creative writing.
Editors’ “personal taste” is too often an excuse or disguise for elitism and arrogance. In my view, my responsibility as an editor is to be responsive to writers and readers, and to give readers access to a wide range of world poetry. Publishers and writers who address a broader readership (as Bloodaxe has done with Staying Alive and other anthologies) are attacked by elitist critics for “dumbing down” – but receive overwhelming support from readers as well as from intelligent poets. Contemporary poetry has never been more varied, but what the public gets to hear about are the new post-Larkin “mainstream” and the “postmodern avant-gardists” (with their academic strongholds in Oxford and Cambridge respectively). More broad-based poetry expressing spiritual wisdom, emotional truth or social and political engagement is of little interest to either camp. Exciting new work by major American, European and Caribbean writers, from Martin Carter, Galway Kinnell and Yusef Komunyakaa to Jane Hirshfield, Mary Oliver and Adam Zagajewski, has been almost totally ignored by national-press poetry reviewers. Continued.
Damn straight!
Speaking of England, they must not have gotten the telegram that everyone who’s anyone must get in on the Franzen backlash, because the Independent has quite a positive review. Also, I strongly suggest that you read Andrew O’Hehir’s review in Salon of Jonestown: The Life and Death of People’s Temple. Chilling.
Remnick in Princeton: Reviews
The Daily Princetonian reports, as does Dealbreaker‘s John Carney, who finds journalists’ math skills risible. From the Princetonian:
When asked by a student in attendance if he had any advice for Princeton students interested in journalism, Remnick — known for his self-deprecating humor in conversation — responded: “Goldman Sachs.”
He advised that the best preparation for becoming a journalist is often not by way of a journalism degree but by gaining awareness and appreciation for the world around oneself. “Learn history, read novels, travel or travel by the page,” he said.
No matter what your interests, “all of us need to support [investigative journalism] as a form of social responsibility,” Remnick said.
Also, Jason Kottke notices that newyorker.com pieces are no longer split up into multiple pages. Big improvement!
Mighty White of Brown University
For Chronicle of Higher Education subscribers only, I’m afraid, this follow-up to that New Yorker feature on the subject a few months ago (I’d look it up, but…well, you know):
Brown U. Acknowledges Its Founders’ Ties to Slavery but Stops Short of Apologizing
By MARTIN VAN DER WERF
Brown University issued an exhaustive documentation on Wednesday of its founders’ role in the slave trade, and recommended setting up a memorial on its campus in Providence, R.I., and establishing a center for the continuing study of slavery and justice.
Coming after three years of meetings, however, the report — by a 16-member Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice — may be more notable for what it doesn’t do: It falls short of offering an institutional apology, and while it discusses the issue of reparations at length, it makes no recommendation on whether to offer such payments to the descendants of slaves. Subscribers may continue.
I’m Fixing a Hole Where the Elbow Gets In
Two comments (one with a thoughtfully provided image of the poked painting “Le Rêve”) on the whole hole-in-the-Picasso incident that Nick Paumgarten wrote a Talk about this week. (Later: Gawker wonders who spilled the beans.)
In the Times today, Sarah Lyall reports on the state of British kids’ school lunches, a nice counterpart to that excellent recent story about the saintly chef’s odyssey to make cafeteria lunches healthier. Know why there are no specifics in that stentence? Because I can’t find the piece anywhere, not on Greg.org, not through Google, not on the New Yorker website, and not in The Complete New Yorker, since I don’t have the new updated Disk One (or the pricey but magically light and functional—I tested it at the festival—hard drive) yet. I feel blue.
There’s another pithy festival wrapup you should read, in the Daily Blague. A snippet:
…Otherwise, it was stand-up comedy all the way. Gary Shteyngart, George Saunders, Calvin Trillin, Anthony Lane, Mark Singer even – all of these men can take to the stage whenever they please. Mr Shteyngart won’t even have to work out a routine. The chunk of Absurdistan that he read was a great deal funnier than it had been on the page. Mr Lane could not have talked faster, but his paean to Ava Gardner forced him speak overtime. (It was almost embarrassing: we were confronted with a man who seemed prepared to throw his life away for an actress’s smile.) Mr Saunders read some forthcoming stuff that I can’t wait to have entire.
The demographic shifts were interesting: heavily under-thirty five for the novelists, Mr Gladwell, and Mr Ashbery; heavily retired for Mr Trillin (in conversation with Mr Singer). Without making a point of doing so, Mr Trillin’s conversation ranged over the history of The New Yorker, the staff of which he joined the year after I started reading it. He had keen things to say about journalism, and how very protected from its rush New Yorker writers used to be. Afterward, at lunch, I chewed over what he’d said, and came to see that this relatively new feature, the New Yorker Festival, has taken the venerable magazine one step closer to an institute of higher learning. Students of The New Yorker University scuttled across the campus of Manhattan in pursuit not so much of edification as of the kind of solidarity that the best universities’ students feel.
Ask the Librarians (III)
A column in which Jon Michaud and Erin Overbey, The New Yorker’s head librarians, answer your questions about the magazine’s past and present. E-mail your own questions for Jon and Erin; the column has now moved to The New Yorker‘s Back Issues blog. Illustration for Emdashes by Lara Tomlin.
Q. For the very first years of the magazine, how did the editors solicit pieces? Did they advertise anywhere?
Jon writes: Ben Yagoda notes in his book About Town: The New Yorker and the World It Made that no fewer than 282 writers contributed at least one piece to The New Yorker in 1925, its first year of publication. This number illustrates how unsettled the magazine’s editorial staff was in its early life, but it may also be a little misleading. Many of those “pieces” were short Talk of the Town stories often no longer than a paragraph, sometimes written by relatives and friends of the magazine’s staff. The most significant group of early contributors to The New Yorker came from a circle of writers and artists who had known the magazine’s founding editor, Harold Ross, from his years at other magazines, including The Stars and Stripes, The Home Sector, and Judge. Many were also members of the Algonquin Round Table, as were Ross and his wife, Jane Grant. The list of contributors includes writers Alexander Woolcott, Ring Lardner, Corey Ford, Franklin P. Adams, Robert Benchley, Dorothy Parker, and Margaret Case Harriman, and artists John Held, Jr., and Gardner Rea.
There are two instances in which the magazine, in its early years, formally solicited work from a group of writers. In 1928, seeking to change the public perception of The New Yorker as solely a humor magazine, its literary editor, Katharine Angell, wrote letters to a number of fiction writers asking for “serious” short stories. Many of them, including Kay Boyle, Sally Benson, and Louise Bogan, submitted work that was later published. The next year, Angell wrote a similar letter soliciting work from poets.
From the beginning, editors at The New Yorker also made a habit of spotting talented young newspaper journalists and bringing them on board, first as freelancers and then as staff writers. A.J. Liebling and Joseph Mitchell are two notable early examples of this practice, which continues with writers such as Malcolm Gladwell and Michael Specter.
In 1923, when Ross first hatched the idea of a weekly humorous magazine with a focus on New York, he created a mock edition that he showed prospective contributors and backers. According to Thomas Kunkel’s Genius in Disguise: Harold Ross of The New Yorker, he carried the dummy around for two years, boring his friends with it. Kunkel notes that “even Woollcott…who could be counted on to vouch for Ross’s editorial acumen, was skeptical. He refused to introduce Ross to the influential publisher Condé Nast.” That union would take another sixty years.
Q. Which writer holds the record for the most short stories published in one year?
Erin writes: In earlier years, The New Yorker ran several fiction pieces in each issue; today, it usually runs one short story and one casual (now known as Shouts and Murmurs) per issue, excepting the two annual fiction issues, which often contain four or five fiction pieces. The writer with the record for the most short stories published in one year happens to be E. B. White, with an astounding twenty-eight stories published in 1927. James Thurber and the novelist John O’Hara follow closely behind White, both with twenty-three stories published in 1932 and 1929, respectively. Frank Sullivan, one of the magazine’s early humor writers, contributed twenty-two short stories in 1931, while noted fiction writer S. J. Perelman contributed fifteen in 1953.
The writer who has published the most short stories in the magazine overall is Thurber, who contributed two hundred and seventy-three fiction pieces from 1927 to 1961. Perelman is a close runner-up, with two hundred and seventy-two short stories published between 1930 and 1979. Other prolific New Yorker fiction writers include O’Hara (two hundred and twenty-seven in all), Sullivan (one hundred and ninety-two), White (one hundred and eighty-three), and John Updike (one hundred and sixty-eight).
Q. The New Yorker used to have a horse-racing column. Who wrote it? Were these racing columns ever collected in a book?
Jon writes: The New Yorker‘s horse-racing column, The Race Track, was written by George F. T. (George Francis Trafford) Ryall under the pen name Audax Minor. His first column for the magazine appeared in the July 10, 1926, issue, under the department heading The Ponies. After a few months it was renamed Paddock and Post before finally becoming The Race Track in May of 1927. The column ran regularly until December 18, 1978.
Ryall was born in Toronto and educated in England, and his family owned a string of racehorses. His first job was covering sports for the Exchange-Telegraph agency of London; he then wrote about horse racing for the New York World. While still at the World, Ryall started contributing to The New Yorker, using the pseudonym Audax Minor. (The nom de plume was a tribute to the British racing writer Arthur Fitzhardinge Berkeley Portman, who wrote under the name Audax Major.) Ryall contributed several Profiles to the magazine and also wrote about men’s fashion, automobiles, and polo, but he is most remembered for The Race Track. The columns were usually short (two pages at most) and crammed with information about horses, horse trainers, jockeys, stables, owners, tracks, touts, and every other facet of racing in the United States and Europe. Here is an example, from a 1977 column:
American-bred Alleged–he’s by Hoist the Flag out of Princess Pout–won the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe at Longchamp in Paris the other Sunday. He took it by a length and a half from Balmerino, the top horse in New Zealand and Australia. Crystal Palace, winner of the French Derby, was third, a head in front of Queen Elizabeth of England’s Dunfermline.
Accounts of races were interspersed with Ryall’s dry observations and efficient character sketches, such as this passage from a 1938 column about the trainer James Fitzsimmons:
He still suffers from the effects of an experiment he made years ago when, as a jockey, he wanted to reduce [his weight]. Someone told him that surplus weight could be baked off and, being a literal-minded man, Fitzsimmons found a brick kiln which was cooling out, crawled in, and lay for some hours on the floor. It was the end of him as a rider; the muscles of his shoulders, back, and neck have never recovered.
At the time of his death in 1979, Ryall was the writer of longest record at The New Yorker and, at 91, the oldest writer on staff. In his unsigned obituary in the magazine (October 22, 1979), Robert MacMillan noted the following: “Once in a while, our Checking Department, trying to verify some remote detail he had mentioned, would be told by outside sources that the only man alive who could answer that question was George Ryall of The New Yorker.”
Ryall’s work has never been collected in book form by a commercial publisher. Some of his pieces have appeared in anthologies of sports writing, but the best way to read his columns (there are more than a thousand of them) is via The Complete New Yorker.
Q. The magazine’s editorial positions have become visibly political in recent years; in fact, the first Talk of the Town piece (Comment) is usually political commentary. When did this start? Did the magazine, for example, take a collective position on the Vietnam War, as it has on Iraq?
Erin writes: The Comment page (or Notes and Comment, as it was originally known) has long been a place for the magazine to express an editorial viewpoint, political or otherwise. According to E. B. White, Scott Elledge’s 1984 biography of the writer credited with originating the Comment editorial, Harold Ross believed that the Comment “set the keynote for the magazine.” The earliest comments were a series of short opinion essays about newsworthy people and events in the city and around the country. Typically, they displayed a light, humorous touch, and many were not political at all.
Characteristic of these are a 1933 Comment by White on the Douglas Fairbanks-Mary Pickford divorce (“We call on Miss Pickford’s lawyer to amend his extremely prejudicial complaint by stating that Mr. Fairbanks’ penchant for travel merely destroyed the legitimate ends of matrimony for Miss Pickford”) and a 1940 Comment by Wolcott Gibbs about the disappearance of “Café Society.” (“Its members are anachronisms and they eat too much, but we shall miss them.”)
The early Comment writers (among them White, Gibbs, and Geoffrey T. Hellman) sometimes used the space to editorialize about–and poke fun at–not only America’s enemies, like Hitler and Mussolini, but also America’s leaders, including presidents and other politicians, business leaders, and the wealthy society elite. A 1937 Comment by White derided Franklin D. Roosevelt as an “Eagle Scout” who’d gotten out of hand, while a 1954 Comment (also by White) categorically dismissed Senator Joseph McCarthy as “the No. 1 waster of the nation’s time.” Early World War II editorial pieces began to take a slightly more serious tone, with prescient warnings against Nazism and Hitler.
It was in the sixties and seventies that the magazine became more overtly political in its editorials. Many Comments expressed disillusionment with both the Vietnam War and the political leadership in Washington. As early as 1965, a Comment by John Updike referred to the conflict in Vietnam as an “unfathomable impasto of blood and money and good intentions and jungle rot.” In 1969, William Shawn took the unusual step of running a long Comment consisting wholly of an anti-war speech by the Nobel Prize-winning scientist George Wald. “We are bombing them in Hanoi [our government tells us] so that we won’t have to fight them in the streets of San Francisco,” Shawn wrote in a 1972 Comment. “And in the course of…all this bombing, our souls have withered.”
Comment writers Jonathan Schell, Richard Goodwin, and Richard Harris wrote impassioned editorials on the growing chaos in Vietnam and the seeming inability of America’s leaders to resolve the conflict. “Somehow, the country has been more battered by this war than by any other war in the century,” Schell wrote in 1972. “It has devoured a generation of our young people, killing some and embittering others…. For ten years, death has had us in its grip, and now it is we…who are beginning to die.”
From the nineties to the present, senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg has succeeded White and Schell as the chief writer of the page, contributing between two and three Comments a month. His Comments on the Afghanistan War, in late 2001, were primarily positive, albeit with a prophetic warning, in December of that year, that “the struggle has begun well, but it has only begun.” With his Comments on the Iraq War–thirteen in all–Hertzberg has taken a more skeptical tone. As early as August of 2002, he wrote that the Bush Administration has “produced plenty of plans for war in Iraq…but it has not yet produced a rationale.” In the summer of 2003, after the war had officially ended, he stated that conditions in Iraq “are disastrous by the looser standards of places like Beirut, Bogota, and Bombay.” And in August 2006–a full four years after his first Comment on the war–he lambasted the failure of President Bush’s “gamble” in Iraq.
For more than 80 years, the magazine has continued to offer an editorial viewpoint during times of peace and war. In 1945, E. B. White remarked on the delicate role of writers and the free press during wartime: “We have been in a good position to observe the effect on writers and artists of war and trouble…. It is hard to remain seated on the low hammocks of satire and humor in the midst of grim events.”
Addressed elsewhere in Ask the Librarians: VII: Who were the fiction editors?, Shouts & Murmurs history, Sloan Wilson, international beats; VI: Letters to the editor, On and Off the Avenue, is the cartoon editor the same as the cover editor and the art editor?, audio versions of the magazine, Lois Long and Tables for Two, the cover strap; V: E. B. White’s newsbreaks, Garrison Keillor and the Grand Ole Opry, Harold Ross remembrances, whimsical pseudonyms, the classic boardroom cartoon; IV: Terrence Malick, Pierre Le-Tan, TV criticism, the magazine’s indexes, tiny drawings, Fantasticks follies; III: Early editors, short-story rankings, Audax Minor, Talk’s political stance; II: Robert Day cartoons, where New Yorker readers are, obscure departments, The Complete New Yorker, the birth of the TOC, the Second World War “pony edition”; I: A. J. Liebling, Spots, office typewriters, Trillin on food, the magazine’s first movie review, cartoon fact checking.
Funniest Cartoon This Week
“New Cocktails” by Sam Means, p. 84. The Jason Patterson drawing (p. 80), which is strange and spooky, is also good. (Here are all the current cartoons.)
This post to be expanded as I see fit, with my favorite pieces, etc., from last week and what I’m looking forward to reading first this time around. But I can tell you now that my favorite cartoon from last week was Drew Dernavich’s “How were you supposed to know he was the sex critic for the ‘Times’?†I also liked “Mind if I change melons?†(Peter Mueller), “You can’t spend your political life hiding behind being Canadian” (William Haefeli), and “Am I having an affair? Why? Am I allowed?” (Carolita Johnson). Ed Koren, I always like.
By the way, I just opened my email to find that “New Cocktails” is also the magazine’s own Cartoon of the Week, which is a coincidence, but also suggests that everyone can see how funny it is.
