Category Archives: New Yorker

Recent New Yorker Fiction Roundup

Benjamin Chambers writes:
I’ve been catching up on recent New Yorker stories, so I thought I’d provide a quick-ish summary of them, using a model I ripped off from Martin. [Warning: there are spoilers below.]
The Slows,” by Gail Hareven (trans. Yaacov Jeffrey Green), May 4, 2009
Plot: An anthropologist has one last encounter with one of the “savages” he has studied for years, though he finds her kind repellent. The “savages,” like the anthropologist, are human, but they have refused a technique that greatly speeds human growth and development, setting them apart.
Key Quote:

No doubt the savages were a riddle that science had not yet managed to solve, and, the way things seemed now, it never would be solved. According to the laws of nature, every species should seek to multiply and expand, but for some reason this one appeared to aspire to wipe itself out. Actually, not only itself but also the whole human race. Slowness was an ideology, but not only an ideology. As strange as it sounds, it was a culture, a culture similar to that of our forefathers.

Verdict: You’ll like it if you don’t mind reductive parables disguised as fiction: humans invariably find reasons to justify their appetite for genocide.
Vast Hell,” by Guillermo Martínez (trans. Alberto Manguel), April 27, 2009
Plot: A mysterious stranger arrives in a small (Argentinian?) town and is presumed to be having an affair with the wife of a barber. When the wife and stranger disappear, village gossips presume foul play. Efforts to find their bodies, however, unearth an unexpected tragedy.
Teaser Quote:

The horror made me wander from one place to another; I wasn’t able to think, I wasn’t able to understand, until I saw a back riddled with bullets and, farther away, a blindfolded head. Then I realized what it was. I looked at the inspector and saw that he, too, had understood, and he ordered us to stay where we were, not to move, and went back into town to get instructions.

Verdict: Absorbing, economical, but too abrupt. The implications of the surprise discovery at the end need more time to unfold, to become something more than an unpleasant event that touches no one.
Interesting Fact:Judging from Wikipedia’s entry on Martínez, this story is taken from a collection he published way back in 1989. (It’s his first to appear in TNY, as is Hareven’s piece.)
A Tiny Feast,” by Chris Adrian, April 20, 2009
Plot: The changeling boy stolen by the fairies Oberon and Titania develops leukemia; uncomprehending, they must shepherd him through the horror of chemotherapy.
Key Quote:

Alice cocked her head. She did not hear exactly what Titania was saying. Everything was filtered through the same normalizing glamour that hid the light in Titania’s face, that gave her splendid gown the appearance of a tracksuit, that had made the boy appear clothed when they brought him in, when in fact he had been as naked as the day he was born. The same spell made it appear that he had a name, though his parents had only ever called him Boy, never having learned his mortal name, because he was the only boy under the hill. The same spell sustained the impression that Titania worked as a hairdresser, and that Oberon owned an organic orchard, and that their names were Trudy and Bob.

Verdict: Delightful though sad; a bit reminiscent of Sylvia Townsend Warner’s “Elphenor and Weasel.” The story only falters in its final paragraph, where the fairies are at a loss and the final lines seem insufficient to bring the piece to a close. [UPDATE: I see I didn’t make it clear that “Tiny Feast” is really an amazing story, and definitely worth reading.]
Interesting Facts:Adrian is a graduate of Iowa Writers’ Workshop, works as an emergency room pediatrician in Boston, and is this year supposed to get a degree from Harvard Divinity School. The man’s an overachiever; we’re lucky he’s a writer. I can’t wait to read the other three stories of his that have appeared in TNY.

Michael Berube on the Race Donnybrook that Would Not Die

Martin Schneider writes:
I’ve been a fan of Michael Bérubé’s since I was in college (graduated 1992), and was charmed to have a brief exchange with him several years ago about an essay of his that apparently only I liked, about 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which he argues persuasively that the extremely common default reading of the movie, which involves some variation on the idea that HAL “goes crazy,” is indisputably contradicted by virtually everything that happens in the movie, and that the movie is really a political movie about the Cold War military-industrial complex. It’s an eye-opener.
Anyway. Bérubé’s exhaustively hyper-droll style always brings a smile to my face, even when he writes 2-3 times more than my attention span can handle (he kissed the Blarney Stone). Today he turns his attention to his only appearance in The New Yorker, a relatively dusty (1995) look at Cornel West and a few other African-American intellectuals who became more prominent in the mid-1990s.
Be forewarned; his post of today is not for everybody. I like Bérubé because he chases down a lot of nuance in people’s arguments that other writers wouldn’t bother with; plus he’s funny in a way that no academic of my knowledge is. But not everyone will take him the same way.

Ogawa’s Cafeteria in the Evening

Benjamin Chambers writes:
Following Martin’s example, when he used the random number generator to select Profiles to read from The New Yorker’s vast archives (his first was a three-part series on Chicago by A. J. Liebling from 1952), I decided to use it to find a short story to read from the archives.
The random number generator came up with “2004” (year “79” out of 84) and then the “36th” story out of 54 published that year: Yoko Ogawa’s story, “The Cafeteria in the Evening and a Pool in the Rain.”
I’d not heard of Ogawa before. She’s had two stories appear in TNY (both translated by Stephen Snyder), the most recent in 2005. I’m always curious about what tides of opinion and chance conspire to make a writer a frequent contributor to the magazine or a short-lived one, and of course it’s usually impossible to know. However, according to Ogawa’s Wikipedia entry, very little of her work has appeared English, although she’s written quite a lot. (Obviously, Snyder was trying to rectify that, so it’s not clear if the problem was really one of supply.)
In any case, the story’s narrator is a young woman in her early 20s who is about to marry an older man (“the difference in our ages was excessive”). They have selected a house together, partly to accommodate their dog, Juju. The woman is living in the house alone for the three weeks prior to their wedding, getting it ready, when a man and his 3-1/2-year-old son visit one afternoon.
The man’s behavior is odd and she takes him at first for a missionary before realizing her mistake. “Are you suffering some anguish?” he asks “abruptly.” Rather than turn him out on his ear, she considers the question seriously. He leaves after she finally observes that she doesn’t feel like answering:

Do I absolutely have to answer? I’m not sure I see any link between you and me and your question. I’m here, you’re there, and the question is floating between us—and I don’t see any reason to change anything about that situation. It’s like the rain falling without a thought for the dog’s feelings.”

The guy repeats her simile thoughtfully and then says, “I think you could say that’s a perfect response, and I don’t need to bother you anymore. We’ll be going now. Goodbye.”
She runs into the pair again while out walking her dog. The man’s staring in the window at the behind-the-scenes operation of the highly-mechanized school cafeteria, which prepares lunches daily for over 1,000 children. Once again, they have a slightly bizarre conversation.
She finds herself drawn to him, hypnotized a little by the stories he tells, and she begins to look for him when she’s out walking. It’s never clear what he does for a living though he speaks as though he has territory to cover, and at the end, that he and his son are “moving on” to another town the next day. (Because of this, he finally appears to be a bit unreal, a kind of good angel/therapist designed by the author to confront the character with riddles that will help her resolve her own internal–unstated and possibly unacknowledged–doubts.) The lack of detail about the narrator and the ordinariness of those that are supplied contrast strongly with the precise detail of the man’s own stories, making the piece reminiscent of Haruki Murakami’s work, and similarly intriguing.
The things the man says are dense and obscure as parables, and they nearly defeated me. (As the British novelist Nicholas Mosley says in his autobiography, Efforts at Truth, “The power of parables is that even then you still have to figure out everything for yourself.”) I ended up hanging the meaning of the story on its final paragraph:

[The man and his son] walked off in the fading light. Juju and I stood watching them until they became a tiny point in the distance and then vanished. I suddenly wanted to read my ‘Good night’ telegram [from my fiancé] one more time. I could feel the exact texture of the paper, see the letters, feel the air of the night it had arrived. I wanted to read it over and over, until the words melted away. Tightening my grip on the chain, I began to run in the opposite direction.

In other words, the “anguish” she’s been feeling is apprehension over her impending marriage. The man represents, in part, a different life, different choices. In the end, she runs toward marriage and away from the disconnected anomie represented by the man and his son. His mysterious “work” is done because he knows (how?) that she’s resolved her doubts.
Overall rating: worth a look, especially since Ogawa’s not a household name.

What’s in This Week’s New Yorker: 05.18.09

Martin Schneider writes:
A new issue of The New Yorker comes out tomorrow. A preview of its contents, adapted from the magazine’s press release:
In “The Death of Kings,” Nick Paumgarten presents a wide-ranging exploration of the economic crisis and its impact. “Much abridged, a few familiar words will do” to tell the story of the economic crisis, Paumgarten writes: “debt, greed, hubris.”
In “Don’t!” Jonah Lehrer examines recent evidence that indicates that self-control, not intelligence, may be the most important variable when it comes to predicting success in life.
In “Drink Up,” Dana Goodyear profiles Fred Franzia, the man behind Charles Shaw, a wine that sells for $1.99 at Trader Joe’s and is affectionately known as Two Buck Chuck.
Hendrik Hertzberg, in Comment, discusses Obama’s upcoming commencement addresses.
There is a “strange, but true” sketchbook by Roz Chast.
Ian Frazier writes an ode to turning forty—again.
Arthur Krystal looks at the life and works of critic William Hazlitt.
Anthony Lane reviews J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek.
John Lahr reviews the new Broadway revival of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot.
There is a short story by Salman Rushdie.

Lane Pans New Star Trek Flick; Also, Dog Bites Man

Martin Schneider writes:
A couple of months ago, Anthony Lane’s dismissive review of Watchmen managed to alienate fans of the movie, fans of the comic book, and fans of all comic books.
In the upcoming issue, Lane directs comparable if not quite equal disapprobation at the new Star Trek movie and the rest of the franchise as well. It’s difficult to imagine a hypothetical Star Trek movie that Lane would want to bestow with a positive review, isn’t it? In any case, queue up a second annoyed sci-fi fan base.
The inventors of Beer Trek are friends of mine, and they report deep pessimism with respect to the new movie. Based on a single viewing of the preview, I’m inclined to agree, at least by the curious logic of the entire rest of the Star Trek franchise (the new swagger-y, foreordained-Hero depiction of Kirk violates the Star Trek ethos in a big way), even as the movie looks pretty good by ordinary standards.
But then again, I’m closer to Lane when it comes to Star Trek! I could only get interested in The Next Generation….

New Yorker Summit Comestibles Feted as “Yummy” by Gracious Attendee

Martin Schneider writes:
I couldn’t be at the New Yorker Summit yesterday, but through the magic of Twitter, I have iron-clad verbal/visual evidence that the food served during the lunch break was “quite good for being in a box.”
In an unprecedented (for Emdashes) follow-up “Twinterview” (wince), attendee Jed Cohen elaborated: “Steak sandwich + tortellini salad + cookies + apple = yummy. Thanks New Yorker/NYU catering!”
Cohen continued: “They also had a grilled vegetable wrap and some kind of chicken sandwich.” (Can Emily confirm?)
Never doubt that Emdashes will provide muckraking of the first order!
(Jed also posted in a more thoughtful way about the Summit. Why not go over and check it out?)

Adam Gopnik and Steven Pinker Debate Darwin, May 20

From the press release:
Adam Gopnik, author of Angels & Ages, A Short Book About Darwin, Lincoln and Modern Life and Steven Pinker, author of The Blank Slate and many other works, will debate a simple and deep subject: How far can Darwin take us as a guide to why we are the way we are? [I suspect neither side will be adopting the creationist position…. —Ed.]
Here are the details:
ADAM GOPNIK with STEVEN PINKER
Angels and Ages
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM
South Court Auditorium
The New York Public Library
Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
Fifth Avenue & 42nd Street / Enter at Fifth Avenue
Buy Tickets & SAVE $10 on every LIVE ticket!
Become a Friend of the Library for as little at $40 and you ticket
will be $15 instead of $25 plus you will pay NO service fees.
Adam Gopnik, author of Angels & Ages, A Short Book About Darwin, Lincoln and Modern Life and Steven Pinker, author of The Blank Slate and many other works, will debate a simple and deep subject: How far can Darwin take us as a guide to why we are the way we are?
Gopnik draws a line and suggests that Darwin can take us only to the edge of art and culture and not beyond; Pinker suggests that Darwin, and Darwinian thinking, in the form of evolutionary psychology, can take us deep into the seeming mysteries of why we like stories and pictures, and the kind of stories and pictures we like.
Both ardent Darwinians [See? Told you. —Ed.], Adam Gopnik and Steven Pinker will offer different—perhaps complementary, perhaps permanently contrasting—visions of what Darwin’s legacy is on the two hundredth anniversary of his birth.
About Adam Gopnik
Adam Gopnik has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1986. In 2000, he began writing New York Journal, about culture and daily life in New York City. He previously spent five years in Paris, writing Paris Journal, a similar column about the life of an expatriate in Paris. Gopnik is the author of Paris to the Moon, The King in the Window, and Through the Children’s Gate. In 1998, he received the George Polk Award for Magazine Reporting for his Paris Journal. Before he came to The New Yorker he was an editor at Alfred A. Knopf and a fiction editor at GQ. In 1990, Gopnik co-curated an exhibition entitled “High and Low: ModernArt and Popular Culture” at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, with the museum’s director, Kirk Varnedoe. He also co-authored the book under the same title.
About Steven Pinker
Steven Pinker is Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. His research on visual cognition and the psychology of language has won prizes from the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and the American Psychological Association. He is the author of The
Language Instinct, How the Mind Works,
and The Blank Slate, and writes frequently for The New Republic and The New York Times. He has been named Humanist of the Year, and is listed in Foreign Policy and
Prospect magazine’s “The World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and in
Time magazine’s “The 100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” His latest book is The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.

New Yorker Summit: Happening Today

Martin Schneider writes:
The New Yorker Summit is taking place today at New York University. (A bit more convenient location than the Conference of previous years, which was held way over by the West Side Highway, in Chelsea.)
The lineup includes many luminaries, including Howard Dean, Geoffrey Canada, Nassim N. Taleb, Naomi Klein, and Elizabeth Edwards, along with familiar personages from the magazine like Seymour Hersh, Malcolm Gladwell, James Surowiecki, Ryan Lizza, and on and on. (Here’s the schedule.)
If I weren’t on the other side of the Atlantic, I would so be covering this. Failing that, we refer you to Jason Kottke, who has promised “some sort of live-ish coverage.”
More to come as the magazine posts reports, videos, and the like. Attendees, I wish you all intellectual, social, and culinary pleasure.
Update: The group NYU Students Organizing for America is covering the summit live via Twitter.

Milton Glaser, David Remnick, and An Unnamed Aide … Sing Together

Martin Schneider writes:
The indispensible Jason Kottke today posted a passage from Milton Glaser’s Ten Things I Have Learned, about how to detect when you are being nourished or sapped by a given person:

And the important thing that I can tell you is that there is a test to determine whether someone is toxic or nourishing in your relationship with them. Here is the test: You have spent some time with this person, either you have a drink or go for dinner or you go to a ball game. It doesn’t matter very much but at the end of that time you observe whether you are more energised or less energised. Whether you are tired or whether you are exhilarated. If you are more tired then you have been poisoned. If you have more energy you have been nourished. The test is almost infallible and I suggest that you use it for the rest of your life.

Shrewd words indeed. They reminded me of a passage from “The Wilderness Campaign,” a David Remnick Profile of Al Gore from 2004 (the bearded, liberated, post-2000 Al Gore), describing why, for all of Gore’s success in politics, it might have been an awkward fit for him. Here it is (emphasis mine; New Yorker don’t truck with no bold text):

Other aides were less harsh, saying that Gore was brusque and demanding but not unkind. Yet, once freed of the apparatus and the requirements of a political campaign, Gore really did savor his time alone, thinking, reading, writing speeches, surfing the Internet. “One thing about Gore personally is that he is an introvert,” another former aide said. “Politics was a horrible career choice for him. He should have been a college professor or a scientist or an engineer. He would have been happier. He finds dealing with other people draining. And so he has trouble keeping up his relations with people. The classical difference between an introvert and an extrovert is that if you send an introvert into a reception or an event with a hundred other people he will emerge with less energy than he had going in; an extrovert will come out of that event energized, with more energy than he had going in. Gore needs a rest after an event; Clinton would leave invigorated, because dealing with people came naturally to him.”

That’s all. It jogged a memory, and I couldn’t rest until I had posted it here.