In which John Bucher, Martin Schneider (currently on Austrian holiday), and I review the high points and discuss the particulars of the issue you may just be getting to. We occasionally carp, but mostly we celebrate.
I never read thrillers growing up, unless you count the Hardy Boys. And no spy novels, apart from John LeCarré’s Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, which I had to read for a fourth-year class on espionage—the class I was in, incidentally, when the attacks of September 11 took place. I didn’t play with G.I. Joes, and, frankly, never understood the ecstasies my Egyptian friend Kareem found in them, flinging himself, and the figurines, around the pool deck at his Toronto home, spittle flying from his mouth—rat-tat-tat-tat-tat, Snake Eyes…noooo!!!
So I was unprepared, at least in a literary sense, for Jon Lee Anderson’s ducking, barrel-rolling, ricocheting account (audio here) of American opium eradication efforts in Afghanistan, “The Taliban’s Opium War.” About midway through the piece, the prose turned all And then we heard an explosion over the ridge; there were shell casings and bone fragments all around. We poked our head out of the foxhole, and I had to remind myself that I wasn’t reading a paperback I’d found wedged between two bus seats. And just seconds after that admittedly disparaging thought, I had another: Shit, the guy got shot at, for four hours, in Afghanistan. He’s got more street cred—field cred, whatever—than Fifty. —JB
I’m a fan of David Sedaris, and in part because the Greyhound bus system and I have recently been excessively intimate, I’ve been catching up on old episodes of This American Life. I’m always glad to hear a Sedaris segment is coming up; I relish his clever, absorbing, self-aware, drolly delivered spoken monologues. So maybe that’s why “This Old House” went down the wrong way—it’s quite possible I’ve just hit my Sedaris quota for the month. But I think it might have more to do with Sedaris’s characterization of “Rosemary Dowd” (a needlessly unkind, and comically unnecessary, pseudonym), his antiques-obsessed landlady. She’s the hero of the story, then she’s discarded as evidence that Sedaris still had some growing up to do. I was sad for poor Rosemary, the crumbling symbol of remembrance. And it reminded me again that I would love to see more of these personal histories and reflections from people who are ladies themselves. —EG
Monthly Archives: July 2007
The People’s Handsome Prince? More Tina Brown Topics
From an interview with Tina Brown, today in the Independent:
What inspired you to embark on a career in the media?
I was a newspaper and magazine junkie from the year dot. My father was a film producer and I have always loved the narrative drive of the great non-fiction stories. Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood made me see what a great literary journalist could do with the facts.
…
How do you feel you influence the media?
At The New Yorker and Vanity Fair we constantly set the agenda for TV discussion and editorials. It was great to see how you could help to move the media in a new direction. At Vanity Fair I was proud of publishing William Styron’s piece about his manic depression. He turned it into a bestseller with the same title as the piece, Darkness Visible.
What is the proudest achievement in your working life?
Waking up the sleeping beauty of The New Yorker magazine. It was a very difficult challenge to modernise the grand old lady of American letters.
…
What are your weekend papers? And do you have a favourite magazine?
I read all the weekend papers when I come here. My favourite magazines are still The New Yorker and The Spectator, which I subscribe to in the US. I still enjoy Vanity Fair, love Foreign Affairs in the US and The Week in both places.
I love that expression “the year dot.” We should really reintroduce it over here.
Lizza’s Gold: He Culls His Best From The New Republic
If, like me, you want to get the feel of this Ryan Lizza character in advance of his August 1 start as The New Yorker‘s Washington Correspondent, you’d do well to wander through the ten pieces the writer himself feels to be his finest. —John Bucher
From the New Republic intro:
After a nearly a decade…Ryan Lizza will leave us to become the Washington Correspondent for The New Yorker. From impeachment to the 2000 recount, from the White House to the presidential campaign, Ryan has covered it all, so we asked him for his favorite pieces from the past ten years.
Simon Rich and Malcolm Gladwell: “Busted” and…Busted?
Matthew Yglesias calls out Simon Rich on a few points in this week’s Shouts:
When I was eighteen and Simon Rich was fifteen we were both in Mr Young’s homeroom and he really wasn’t the “sitting silently in the corner” type. I distinctly recall him showing off his juggling moves.
Ha! Writers do so love that “shy little me” voice. Still, as commenter ostap points out, “Showing off juggling moves in home room is entirely consistent with sitting in the corner at parties.” But what’s with that (not Constant) Reader commenter? Sheesh.
Meanwhile, those meanie scientists are after Malcolm Gladwell again. (The subtitle: “Sorry, Malcolm, but the Tipping Point Might Be More Myth Than Math.” He’s a first-name monolith!) Is it me or do Gladwell’s books get treated like original science more than they should be? I regard it as a compliment—Gladwell is so darn good at popularizing, explaining, and repackaging original work mostly done elsewhere that people feel the need to pick apart his theses.
Let’s look at one line from the article: “In reality, tipping—experiencing that exponential growth—is very difficult.” How this represents a debunking is beyond me. Show me the passage where Gladwell says tipping things is a piece of pie, and you win, Ad Age! (But you can’t.) —Martin Schneider
[There’s at least one of Gladwell’s theses that is surely undebunkable! Also, I liked this comment on the Yglesias post: ‘The best part, though, are the key words on the side: ‘Children; Teen-agers; Baseball; Erections; Mothers; Concerts; Popularity.’ From now on, I’m restricting my reading to only what comes up from a Google Alert on those seven words.” —EG]
“I Propose a New Yorker Revision”: The Design, the Drawbacks, and a Dream
On the AIGA website, design critic and scholar KT Meaney, formerly of Pentagram, has a detailed critique of the longstanding, beloved but, she argues, “stagnant” look of the magazine that Ross and Irvin built.
She quotes her former boss Michael Bierut, who praised the magazine as a model of “slow design” in Design Observer (read the star-studded comments, too), but concludes:
I believe that the New Yorker layout is comprehensively flawed and a revision is overdue. Any redesign is up against a begrudging audience of grammatically correct but graphically unconscious * standpatters (and design giants as well). So how do you persuade such obstinate admirers? The answer is, respectfully.
She goes on, “Break the gridlock (literally and graphically) and change,” calling for—and picturing—a proposed set of updates toward that end. (In his DO link to Meaney’s analysis, Bierut calls it a “convincing case.”)
As part of her close reading, Meaney reproduces a hilarious Bruce McCall drawing from earlier this year, “First-Ever Guided Tour of The New Yorker,” which our stalwart Martin Schneider brilliantly unpacked here. Martin scrutinized the “Wheel of Article Ideas” (“Logs,” “Naps,” “Oxen,” “Ballet Design,” “J.Lo I.Q.,” etc.), and found that, in fact, much of it had historical precedent in the magazine’s archives. I’m happy to have that image online at last!
* This phrase was hyphenated, but I removed the hyphens because they were confusing my columns.
“The Stakes Were So High With The New Yorker”: Tina Brown’s Second Act
MediaBistro’s smart series continues with Diane Clehane’s “So What Do You Do…?” interview with Tina Brown. A highlight from the section Emdashes readers will be jumping to anyway:
What do you consider your greatest success?
I do think The New Yorker was a very exciting success. As much as I loved Vanity Fair and still do, I still feel The New Yorker was the harder challenge. The stakes were so high with The New Yorker. I felt all the time I was doing it there wasn’t an option to fail. If the magazine not a viable proposition or set for closure — and it was really going down so badly when I took it over. It was so important to revitalize this magazine — the letters, narrative journalism, high standards and the writers that could take three weeks to six months on a story could still be allowed to do that work. What I did realize was that no one again ever was going to start up a magazine that would allow literary journalists to go off months at a time to study and write and do something, so if we failed it would be a horrible consequence.
Well, If You Must Know, That Was Abominable
David Marc Fischer at Blog About Town outdoes himself once again with his second analysis of the 100 drawings and captions thus far in the New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest.
In his first review of the cartoonists and cartoons in the contest so far, he concluded that “the first hundred cartoons in the Caption Contest, drawn mainly by men, tend to depict male, light-skinned, and apparently heterosexual ‘protagonists’ in work and home situations. However, in the bedroom scenarios, the ‘protagonists’ tend to be female.”
In this update, DMF goes on to, as he writes, “offer what contestants will probably value most: information about what makes a winner.” The results may amaze you! (Amusingly, as he reports, “The most common first name among winners is David [4] with Bob/Robert/Rob also adding up to 4.” Are you writing to the unconscious of the editor and cartoon editor, you clever entrants?) Read on.
Meanwhile, over at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, there’s an interview with Charles “Sandy” Sommer, a retired Ralston-Purina executive, whose caption “It’s a thongbird” is one of the finalists this week. For instant gratification as you wait for the results, read our in-depth Q. and A. with winner #100, David Kempler, as conscientious and serious a fellow as he is winsomely (and darkly) funny, and generous cartoonist Mick Stevens.
Dept. of Welcome Baskets: Ryan Lizza Joins The New Yorker
A warm Emdashes welcome to Ryan Lizza, who, on August 1 becomes The New Yorker‘s new Washington Correspondent.
Lizza comes to the magazine from The New Republic (some of his recent articles), where he has been a political correspondent since 1998, most recently as a senior editor. As David Remnick announced today, Lizza will cover Washington, national politics, and the 2008 Presidential campaign. —John Bucher
O Caption! My Caption! Winner #100, the Cartoonist, Dark Humor, & the Ark
The hundredth New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest is now past, but the Emdashes bloodhounds, just as the trail was falling cold, picked up the winner’s scent. In a gathering-momentum tradition, the victor sat down with assiduous Canadian intern John Bucher to discuss his win.
Congratulations to David Kempler, of Island Park, New York, for winning Cartoon Caption Contest #100—a drawing of a tourist couple marooned on Noah’s Ark—with the line, “Don’t tell Noah about the vasectomy.†This week, an additional treat: commentary from the cartoonist himself, Mick Stevens. The bolded questions are for David, and so it probably works best if you read the slanty portions, which are Mick’s, in a Wonder Years-style voiceover. —JB
It wasn’t clear to me until this last, much closer scrutiny that it was in fact a woman saying to a man, “Don’t tell Noah about the vasectomy.” I’d assumed it was one of those nonplussed-looking elephants. How did you first take in this drawing, and how did the caption come to you?
First off, you’re right that it’s often difficult to tell who is actually doing the talking in New Yorker cartoons, and I’ve actually submitted two entries in the past that had the wrong person talking.
Says Mick: I can see why you didn’t see right away that it was the woman speaking. I should have emphasized her a bit more. Cartoons depend on getting the visual across right away, otherwise the joke gets blunted some.
As to how this caption came to me, I’m not really sure. I do know that how I used to construct my entries didn’t seem to work so a few weeks before this particular cartoon I decided to try and think like a New Yorker staff member. After playing with that idiotic notion for a while I dropped the strategy and just went back to think what I thought was funny. I think I just got lucky.
Says Mick: The idea for the cartoon came to me this way: I started with the “Noah’s Ark” cliché, then started thinking about the various animal couples on the boat and what they might say to one another. Then I thought about the fact that humans are animals, too, and imagined them as tourists who had booked a cruise and somehow ended up there.
I think David’s caption is a good one. In most cases, those drawings are done specifically for the contest, but this one originally had a caption. The editors decided to drop mine and use the drawing by itself. (My original one: “Next time, I book the cruise.”)
Your caption, David, is a riff on the sacred and the profane—or, at least, the Biblical and the genital. What is your religious temperament, generally, and what are your feelings about the Noah’s Ark story?
I was raised Jewish and am the only child of two Holocaust survivors. I think I have a morbid sense of humor. Whether or not that is because I am a child of Holocaust survivors is impossible to determine. I also participate in a celebrity death pool, where I have enjoyed some success. They get about 1,200 entries for each game, and I have won a couple of times and been in the money a few other times.
I’m not religious but, as I get older, I reflect more upon my family history. This past March I was invited to Germany by a woman who started a program that features an artist who puts plaques outside the buildings from which people were taken to concentration camps. They unveiled four plaques—for my mother’s mother, father, sister, and brother. My mother did not attend because she felt it would have been too upsetting. It was a good decision on her part.
I view the Noah’s Ark story the same way I view all of the Bible. To me, it’s a somewhat honest attempt to represent history. Unfortunately, it suffers from the same problems you encounter playing a game of telephone, where one person reads a passage to a second person, who repeats it from memory to another, to another, etc. Eventually the story veers pretty far away from the original.
Let’s pursue the connection between morbidity and humor a bit more. What impact, if any, did your parents’ being Holocaust survivors have on your sense of humor? Do they share your sense of humor? And what is black humor, exactly?
Hard to say their impact on my sense of humor: I’ve never experienced life as another person or in different circumstances. Maybe I understand better than some how quickly our lives can be snuffed out. My father is dead. He was always clowning around but not in a morbid way. His brother shared my sense of humor. My mother is a much more serious person than my father was.
Black humor is comedy with an underlying uneasy feeling that tells you perhaps you shouldn’t be laughing. One of my favorite examples of black humor is the movie Happiness. One of the plot’s central points concerns child molestation. I thought it was brilliant—but both times I saw it in a theater about a third of the audience walked out, offended.
What is your first memory of reading The New Yorker? What are three pieces that stand out for you?
I don’t remember my first reading, but it was probably in college. Top three is tough and I’m sure I’ll forget something, but, off the top of my head, I would have to go with the Richard Preston piece about Ebola that ended up as the book The Hot Zone—one of the most terrifying things I have ever read. My favorite cover is the Art Spiegelman silhouette of the World Trade Center after 9/11. My favorite reading is anything by Hendrik Hertzberg.
I can’t help but ask a person who confesses a morbid sense of humor: What will your tombstone read? Or, if you prefer, what song will you have played at your funeral?
Never thought about my tombstone, but perhaps I should. Final song would be either something by David Bowie or Elvis Costello. “The Angels Wanna Wear My Red Shoes” pops into my mind at the moment.
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 Wilkner, winner #99 (“I’d like to get your arrow count down.â€)
- Richard Hine, winner #98 (“When you’re finished here, Spencer, we’ll need you on the bridge-to-nowhere project.â€)
- Carl Gable, winner #40 (“Hmm. What rhymes with layoffs?â€)
- 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
- Evan Butterfield, winner #15 (“Well, it’s a lovely gesture, but I still think we should start seeing other people.”)
- 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.”)
Register: Titled Newsbreaks, 4Q83
In which Martin, who’s now abroad and provoking envy among his colleagues here at Emdashes, combines his fondness for newsbreaks—those witty clippings at the end of the occasional New Yorker column—his voracity for research and documentation, and his nimble fingers with the Complete New Yorker DVDs (from which, as Martin points out, newsbreaks are absent). A math student of whom it was once said “She has somehow arrived at the correct solutions, yet does not appear to know how to graph the trigonometric functions we studied this term,” I’m still somewhat fuzzy about what all the figures mean (though I know at least one of them is a fiscal quarter), but I know that you, sage readers, actually made it to Calculus and won’t have any trouble. —EG
ANTICLIMAX DEPARTMENT 11/28 55, 12/5 208
BLOCK THAT METAPHOR! 10/17 49, 10/24 157, 11/21 138, 11/28 147, 12/5 152
BRAVE NEW WORLD DEPARTMENT 10/24 103, 11/28 190
CLEAR DAYS ON THE EDUCATIONAL SCENE 12/5 177
CONSTABULARY NOTES FROM ALL OVER 11/14 168, 12/19 131
DEPARTMENT OF DELICACY 11/21 49
DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION 12/12 167
DEPT. OF UTTER CONFUSION 10/17 167
DON’T GIVE IT A SECOND THOUGHT DEPARTMENT 12/19 127
FAMOUS “WHAT IF”S OF HISTORY 11/21 213
FULLER EXPLANATION DEPT. 12/26 53
HIGHER MATHEMATICS DEPT. 10/17 192
HOW’S THAT AGAIN? DEPARTMENT 10/10 123, 10/17 56, 10/31 133, 11/14 187, 11/21 164, 11/28 104, 12/19 142
IT’S ABOUT TIME DEPARTMENT 12/26 68
LIFE IN CALIFORNIA 11/28 51, 12/19 47
LIFE IN THE FAST LANE 12/26 39
LIFE IN TORONTO 10/17 92
LYRICAL PROSE DEPARTMENT 12/19 121
NEATEST TRICK OF THE WEEK 10/24 48, 10/31 139, 11/14 209, 11/28 167, 12/5 183
NO COMMENT DEPARTMENT 11/7 152, 12/12 188
PERISH THE THOUGHT DEPT. 10/10 153
RAISED EYEBROWS DEPARTMENT 11/7 112, 12/12 148
SENTENCES WE HATED TO COME TO THE END OF 11/28 177
SOCIAL NOTES FROM ALL OVER 10/3 103, 10/10 161, 10/31 144, 11/21 219, 12/12 154, 12/26 43
THAT’S TOO BAD DEPARTMENT 10/17 177
THE MYSTERIOUS EAST 12/19 123
THE OMNIPOTENT WHOM 11/7 47
THERE’LL ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND 10/3 132, 12/12 159, 12/26 57
THESE CHANGING TIMES 10/24 53
UH-HUH DEPARTMENT 10/31 125
WE DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT DEPARTMENT 10/3 108
WORDS OF ONE SYLLABLE DEPT. 11/14 139, 11/28 168, 12/12 74
* Fascinating, sprawling Robert Penn Warren poem in 11/14 issue. I dare someone to tackle it.
* Brilliant Al Ross cartoon about literary snobbery in 11/21 issue.
* Engrossing profile on five brothers who are all New York City building superintendents, in 10/24 issue. No other magazine does this sort of thing so well.
* Janet Malcolm on Jeffrey Masson pops up in this quarter. Uh-oh.
* George Steiner on George Orwell looks interesting, 12/12 issue.
