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.

Showing posts with label Erin Overbey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Erin Overbey. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 24, 2026

Susan Sontag's "Pilgrimage" - Fact, Fiction, or Faction? (Part II)

Illustration by Aldo Jarillo, from Alex Ross's "What Went Wrong When Susan Sontag Met Thomas Mann?"









A few years ago, I posted a note here asking if Susan Sontag’s “Pilgrimage” is fact, fiction, or faction. The question arose as a result of Erin Overbey including Sontag’s piece in her anthology of New Yorker personal essays called "Sunday Reading: Personal Reflections" (December 19, 2021). In my post, I noted that “Pilgrimage” originally appeared in The New Yorker as fiction, and that it’s also included in Sontag’s posthumous collection Debriefing: Collected Stories (2017). The editor of that book, Benjamin Taylor, in his Foreword, refers to the contents as short stories. He says, “Craving more uncertainty than the essay allowed for, Sontag turned from time to time to a form in which one need only persevere, making up one’s mind about nothing: the infinitely flexible, ever-amenable short story.”

Now there’s another opinion to be considered. Alex Ross, in his recent “What Went Wrong When Susan Sontag Met Thomas Mann?" (March 14, 2026) describes “Pilgrimage” as “semi-fictional.” According to Ross, Sontag’s meeting with Mann did take place, but not exactly the way she said it did in “Pilgrimage.” For one thing, at the actual meeting, there were two people accompanying Sontag, not one, as she says in the story. For another, the person she airbrushed from the piece, Gene Marum, was the person who cold-called Mann and requested the interview. It appears that Sontag’s “Pilgrimage" is that unreliable hybrid called faction.  

Sunday, January 23, 2022

David Denby on Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation"

Photo from Erin Overbey's "Sunday Reading: A Cultural Review of the Aughts"










Erin Overbey, in her “Sunday Reading: A Cultural Review of the Aughts” (newyorker.com, January 23, 2022), provides “a selection of pieces—a culture review, of sorts—that capture the creative pulse of the early two-thousands.” It’s a wonderful collection that, for me, brings back many pleasurable memories. Included in her collection is David Denby’s brilliant “Heart Break Hotels” (The New Yorker, September 15, 2003), a review of two movies – Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation and Stephen Frears’s Dirty Pretty Things. Lost in Translation is my all-time favourite film. Denby’s piece is an excellent appreciation of it. He writes,

Coppola doesn’t punch up her scenes; she’s not interested in tension leading to a climax but in moods and states of being. She’s willing to let an awkward silence sit on the screen. Not much happens, but Coppola is so gentle and witty an observer that the movie casts a spell. 

It does indeed. For me, the essence of that spell is the exquisite melancholy of obstructed desire. Denby gets at this when he says of the film’s two main characters, played superbly by Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson, “The relationship is perched on the edge of eros.” I don’t know of any other movie that explores that edge so tenderly, beautifully, and perceptively. 

Monday, December 20, 2021

Susan Sontag's "Pilgrimage" - Fact, Fiction, or Faction?

Portrait of Thomas Mann by Elliott Erwitt, from Erin Overbey’s “Sunday Reading: Personal Reflections”   

Erin Overbey’s “Sunday Reading: Personal Reflections” (newyorker.com, December 19, 2021) is a delightful collection of New Yorker personal essays. It includes one of my favorite Susan Sontag pieces – “Pilgrimage” (December 21, 1987), an account of Sontag’s visit with Thomas Mann in 1947. But I have a question. Is this piece fact, fiction, or faction? It originally appeared in The New Yorker as fiction. It’s included in Sontag’s posthumous collection, Debriefing: Collected Stories (2017). The editor of that book, Benjamin Taylor, in his Foreword, refers to the contents as short stories. He says, “Craving more uncertainty than the essay allowed for, Sontag turned from time to time to a form in which one need only persevere, making up one’s mind about nothing: the infinitely flexible, ever-amenable short story.” Now, in Overbey’s collection, “Pilgrimage” is presented as “personal reflection.” 

Which is it? Does it matter? To me, it matters immensely. Unlike some readers (e.g., James Wood), I’m not comfortable with essays in which there’s a “sly and knowing movement between reality and fiction” (Wood’s “Reality Effects,” The New Yorker, December 19 & 26, 2011). Did Sontag’s friend Merrill really phone Mann’s home in Pacific Palisades and receive an invitation to join him for tea? Did Sontag and Merrill actually go to Mann’s house and have tea and cake with him? Did Mann really talk to them about Wagner, Goethe, and “the value of literature” and “the necessity of protecting civilization against the forces of barbarity”? Did Mann say and do all the things that Sontag says he did? Or is the piece, in whole or in part, fabricated? For me, “Pilgrimage” gains immeasurably when it’s presented as a “personal reflection.” I hope Overbey is right.

Monday, March 29, 2021

Pauline Kael's "The Movie Lover"

Pauline Kael (Photo by James Hamilton, 1985)














Ah, what’s this? A New Yorker piece by Pauline Kael called “The Movie Lover.” Erin Overbey includes it in her “Sunday Reading: Film Stories” (newyorker.com, March 28, 2021). I’ve never heard of “The Movie Lover.” I read the first sentence – “I’ve been lucky” – and instantly recognized it as the opening of the Introduction to her great 1994 collection For Keeps. I’ve read this Introduction many times; it’s one of my favorite Kael pieces. I didn’t know that it first appeared in The New Yorker as “The Movie Lover.” It’s a wonderful essay, in which Kael reflects on the genesis of her writing style – what she calls “that direct, spoken tone.” She says,

A friend of mine says that he learned from reading me that “content grows from language, not the other way around.” That’s a generous way of saying that I let it rip, that I don’t fully know what I think until I’ve said it. The reader is in on my thought processes.

Yes, she let it rip. That’s what I love about her writing. Take her superb “The God-Bless-America Symphony” (The New Yorker, December 18, 1978), a review of Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter. Reading it, you sense Kael grappling with this “astonishing piece of work,” trying to sort out her responses. Finally, near the end, she lands on this perception: 

Michael shows no physical desire for Linda. They lie on a bed together, he fully clothed – should we know what they’re thinking? We don’t. And when, for one night, they’re under the covers together, without their clothes, and he rolls over on top of her, the scene is deliberately vague, passionless. He never even kisses her – would that be too personal? He was hotter for the deer.

That last line makes me smile every time I read it. I’ll bet Kael smiled, too, as she wrote it. She loved wisecracks, and that’s one of her best. And it gets at the essence of her take on The Deer Hunter – “a romantic adolescent boy’s view of friendship, with the Vietnam War perceived in the Victorian terms of movies such as Lives of a Bengal Lancer – as a test of men’s courage.” 

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

A. J. Liebling's Classic "Poet and Pedagogue"


Cassius Clay (Photo from The New Yorker}























As a result of seeing A. J. Liebling’s classic “Poet and Pedagogue” listed in Erin Overbey’s “Sunday Reading: First Encounters with Legendary Figures” (newyorker.com, May 24, 2020), I decided to revisit it. What a great piece! It’s an account of the Cassius Clay-Sonny Banks fight at Madison Square Garden, February 10, 1962. It originally appeared in the March 3, 1962, New Yorker and is included in Liebling’s posthumous 1990 collection A Neutral Corner.

Liebling begins with visits to both boxers’ training camps a week or so before the fight. His description of Clay reciting a poem while doing sit-ups is inspired:

At the gym that day, Cassius was on a mat doing situps when Mr. Angelo Dundee, his trainer, brought up the subject of the ballad. “He is smart,” Dundee said. “He made up a poem.” Clay had his hands locked behind his neck, elbows straight out, as he bobbed up and down. He is a golden-brown young man, big-chested and long-legged, whose limbs have the smooth, rounded look that Joe Louis’s used to have, and that frequently denotes fast muscles. He is twenty years old and six feet two inches tall, and he weighs a hundred and ninety-five pounds.

“I’ll say it for you,” the poet announced, without waiting to be wheedled or breaking cadence. He began on a rise:

“You may talk about Sweden [down and up again],
You may talk about Rome [down and up again],
But Rockville Centre is Floyd Patterson’s home [down].”

He is probably the only poet in America who can recite this way. I would like to see T. S. Eliot try.

Clay went on, continuing his ventriflexions:

“A lot of people say that Floyd couldn’t fight,
But you should have seen him on that comeback night.”

There were some lines that I fumbled; the tempo of situps and poetry grew concurrently faster as the bardic fury took hold. But I caught the climax as the poet’s voice rose:

“He cut up his eyes and mussed up his face
And that last left hook knocked his head out of place!”

Cassius smiled and said no more for several sit ups, as if waiting for Johansson to be carried to his corner. He resumed when the Swede’s seconds had had time to slosh water in his pants and bring him around. The fight was done; the press took over:

“A reporter asked: ‘Ingo, will a rematch be put on?’
Johansson said: ‘Don’t know. It might be postponed.’ ”

The poet did a few more silent strophes, and then said:

“If he would have stayed in Sweden,
He wouldn’t have took that beatin’.”

Here, overcome by admiration, he lay back and laughed. After a minute or two, he said, “That rhymes. I like it.”

That “He is probably the only poet in America who can recite this way. I would like to see T. S. Eliot try” made me laugh. That’s the thing about this piece; it’s still as fresh and vital as the day Liebling wrote it. It puts me squarely there with Clay (as he was then known), at the Department of Parks gymnasium, as he trained for his New York debut as a professional against Detroit heavyweight Sonny Banks.

It also puts me there at Harry Wiley’s Gymnasium, where Banks was training. Liebling writes,

By the time I got up the stairs, the three fellows who were going to spar were already in the locker room changing their clothes, and the only ones in sight were a big, solid man in a red jersey, who was laying out the gloves and bandages on a rubbing table, and a wispy little chap in an olive-green sweater, who was smoking a long rattail cigar. His thin black hair was carefully marcelled along the top of his narrow skull, a long gold watch chain dangled from his fob pocket, and he exuded an air of elegance, precision, and authority, like a withered but still peppery mahout in charge of a string of not quite bright elephants. 

Liebling has a jeweller’s eye for telltale boxing details. He says of Banks,

Banks, when he sparred with Jones, did not scuffle around but practiced purposefully a pattern of coming in low, feinting with head and body to draw a lead, and then hammering in hooks to body and head, following the combination with a right cross. His footwork was neat and geometrical but not flashy—he slid his soles along the mat, always set to hit hard.

Liebling’s description of the fight is excellent. This particular bout is historically significant as the first time in Clay’s professional career that he was knocked down. Here’s the moment:

When the bell rang, Banks dropped into the crouch I had seen him rehearse, and began the stalk after Clay that was to put the pressure on him. I felt a species of complicity. The poet, still wrapped in certitude, jabbed, moved, teased, looking the Konzertstück over before he banged the ivories. By nimble dodging, as in Rome, he rendered the hungry fighter’s attack quite harmless, but this time without keeping his hypnotic stare fixed steadily enough on the punch-hand. They circled around for a minute or so, and then Clay was hit, but not hard, by a left hand. He moved to his own left, across Banks’s field of vision, and Banks, turning with him, hit him again, but this time full, with the rising left hook he had worked on so faithfully. The poet went down, and the three men crouching below Banks’s corner must have felt, as they listened to the count, like a Reno tourist who hears the silver-dollar jackpot come rolling down. It had been a solid shot—and where one shot succeeds, there is no reason to think that another won’t.

It was not to be. Clay quickly recovers, and in the next round “jabbed the good boy until he had spread his already wide nose over his face.” Liebling says of Banks, “He kept throwing that left hook whenever he could get set, but he was like a man trying to fight off wasps with a shovel.”

The fight is stopped in the fourth round, with Banks staggered and helpless. The piece ends memorably. Instead of going to Clay’s dressing room for a post-fight interview with the winner, Liebling seeks out Banks. He writes,

When I arrived, Banks, sitting up on the edge of a rubbing table, was shaking his head, angry at himself, like a kid outfielder who has let the deciding run drop through his fingers. Summerlin was telling him what he had done wrong: “You can’t hit anybody throwing just one punch all the time. You had him, but you lost him. You forgot to keep crowding.” Then the unquenchable pedagogue said, “You’re a better fighter than he is, but you lost your head. If you can only get him again . . .” But poor Banks looked only half convinced. What he felt, I imagine, was that he had had Clay, and that it might be a long time before he caught him again. If he had followed through, he would have been in line for dazzling matches—the kind that bring you five figures even if you lose. I asked him what punch had started him on the downgrade, but he just shook his head. Wiley, the gym proprietor, said there hadn’t been any one turning point. “Things just went sour gradually all at once,” he declared. “You got to respect a boxer. He’ll pick you and peck you, peck you and pick you, until you don’t know where you are.”

I think this is one of the all-time great endings in sports writing. As Fred Warner says in the Afterword of A Neutral Corner,

Like the Russian general in For Whom the Bell Tolls, he [Liebling] can joke because he is so serious, as he is at the end of “Poet and Pedagogue,” where he describes the beaten and now forgotten fighter who had nearly beaten Cassius Clay and was faced with a lifetime of remembering what might have been. That sad tableau reveals a lot about what made Liebling such a good writer. None of the taints of the sports page are there – hyperbole, cynicism, or sentimentality. It is heartbreaking, emblematic, and just right.

Saturday, May 9, 2020

Janet Malcolm and the Meaning of "Gesamkunstpatchwork"


Janet Malcolm (Illustration by Jillian Tamaki)























Janet Malcolm’s “A Girl of the Zeitgeist” (The New Yorker, October 20 & 27, 1986) is an idiosyncratic profile of Artforum editor Ingrid Sischy. I recently reread it after I saw it listed in Erin Overbey’s “Sunday Reading: A Cultural Review of the Eighties (newyorker.com, March 22, 2020). Of its many oddities – its preoccupation with interior décor, its oblique approach to its subject (Sischy doesn’t appear until about 7000 words in), its distaste for the art world in which Sischy circulates – the most piquant for me is the bravura analytical move at the end, revealing and attempting to resolve Malcolm’s “disappointment” with her subject.

Oh yes, and another oddity – that strange, ugly word “Gesamkunstpatchwork” in what is perhaps the piece’s most striking sentence:

She is the Ariel of the art world, darting hither and yon, seeming to alight everywhere at once, causing peculiar things to happen, seeing connections that others cannot see, and working as if under orders from some Prospero of postmodernism, for whose Gesamtkunstpatchwork of end-of-the-century consciousness she is diligently gathering material from every corner of the globe as well as from every cranny of the East Village. 

It’s a play on “Gesamkunstwerk,” which the dictionary defines as “total artwork, where painting, sculpture, and architecture are combined together in a single, unified, and harmonious ensemble.” Malcolm’s variation on it is a sarcastic pun, another indication of her distaste for the flashy, grungy art of eighties New York.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

July 2, 2012 Issue


This week’s issue contains a curio – John McPhee’s “Editors & Publisher." It connects McPhee’s memories of three key people in his writing life (Robert Gottlieb, William Shawn, and Roger Strauss) through the use of “fuck” or variations thereof (e.g., “fucking,” “motherfucker”). McPhee writes: “Fuck, fucker, fuckest; fuckest, fucker, fuck. In all my days, I had found that four-letter word – with its silent ‘c’ and its quartzite ‘k’ – more shocking than a thunderclap.” Of the various “fuck”-themed anecdotes that McPhee relates in his piece, the one I most enjoyed was Roger Strauss saying “Fuck you” to McPhee when McPhee asked him for an advance. What I like about it is the way McPhee reveals, in the aftermath of the shock of hearing what Strauss said, that he (McPhee) may have teasingly provoked it (“Truth be told, though, the book was an amalgam of fragments of other books, for which he had long since paid advances”). “Editors and Publisher” raised a question in my mind: when it came time to publish “The Survival of the Bark Canoe” in book form, why didn’t McPhee change it to reflect what Warren Elmer actually said (“You fucking lunatic, head for the shore!”)? Why did he keep the bowdlerized New Yorker version (“You God-damned lunatic, head for the shore!”)?

“Editors and Publisher” provides valuable insight into The New Yorker’s evolving usage of “fuck.” But there’s another word I’m even more curious about. In my opinion, no expletive packs more punch than the blunt, concussive “cunt.” According to Erin Overbey’s “Bonfire of the Profanities” (“Back Issues,” newyorker.com, June 2, 2011), it first appeared in the magazine in Philip Roth’s short story “The Ultimatum” (June 26, 1995). I notice that John Updike uses it in the version of his great short story “Love Song, for a Moog Synthesizer,” included in his 2003 collection The Early Stories (“The stagy light webbed them, made her appear all circles. She said she could feel the wind on her cunt”). “Love Song, for a Moog Synthesizer” was originally published in The New Yorker, June 14, 1976. Checking it now, I’m not surprised to see that “cunt” has been airbrushed (so to speak); the line reads, “The stagy light webbed them, made her appear all circles. She said she could feel the wind now.”