Introduction

What is The New Yorker? I know it’s a great magazine and that it’s a tremendous source of pleasure in my life. But what exactly is it? This blog’s premise is that The New Yorker is a work of art, as worthy of comment and analysis as, say, Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn.” Each week I review one or more aspects of the magazine’s latest issue. I suppose it’s possible to describe and analyze an entire issue, but I prefer to keep my reviews brief, and so I usually focus on just one or two pieces, to explore in each the signature style of its author. A piece by Nick Paumgarten is not like a piece by Jill Lepore, and neither is like a piece by Ian Frazier. One could not mistake Collins for Seabrook, or Bilger for Galchen, or Mogelson for Kolbert. Each has found a style, and it is that style that I respond to as I read, and want to understand and describe.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

June 28, 2010 Issue


There’s still time for me to read more of the June 28th issue. The July 5th issue hasn’t arrived yet. But … I just can’t seem to get up for it. “Nothing ruins a critic like pretending to care,” says Peter Schjeldahl in the Introduction to his great collection “Let’s See.” I agree. I’m not going to pretend I care about Mike Huckabee, who is the subject of Ariel Levy’s article “Prodigal Son.” I’m not going to pretend I care about Roger Federer, who is the subject of Calvin Tompkin’s piece “Anxiety on the Grass.” I’m definitely not going to pretend I care about something called the “Eurovision Song Contest,” which is, unbelievably, what Anthony Lane chose to write about this week. (Doesn’t Lane know by now that television’s sole purpose is to sell?) And neither am I going to pretend I care about lexical hallucinations, which is the subject of Oliver Sack’s “A Man of Letters.” Maybe it’s just the mood I’m in, but I can’t find much of anything in the magazine this week that tickles my fancy. One exception is James Wood’s wonderful review of Adam Fould’s novel “The Quickening Maze.” When Wood puts his kooky religious theories aside (e.g., the idea that fiction is almost a religious activity) and, instead, looks at writing purely as writing, he is amazingly good – Updike’s successor (no less) as the best reviewer in the world.

No comments:

Post a Comment