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 Jeffrey Toobin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeffrey Toobin. Show all posts

Friday, March 11, 2016

February 29, 2016 Issue


Jeffrey Toobin’s Talk piece, "Looking Back," in this week’s issue, perfectly expresses my view of Antonin Scalia:

Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor.

I’ve read several comments on Scalia’s death, e.g., Lawrence H. Tribe’s "The Scalia Myth" (NYR Daily, February 27, 2016), David Cole’s "Scalia: The Constitution in Politics" (NYR Daily, February 15, 2016), Dahlia Lithwick’s "Why Liberals Loved to Hate Antonin Scalia" (Slate, February 14, 2016). Toobin’s piece strikes me as the only one that's adequately damning.   


Postscript: One of the best sentences in this week’s issue is Peter Schjeldahl’s “Take Rat and Bear, their costumed roles as fame-hungry artists turned murder detectives in the very funny Super-8 film 'The Least Resistance' (1980-81), which they made in L.A. on a budget not far north of nothing, despite a triumphant finale involving a helicopter” ("Light Heavyweights") – where “best” means surprising, delightful, specific, textured, variegated, surreal. 

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Paper Rooms: The Art of Interior Description in "New Yorker" Profiles


Fairfield Porter, Interior with a Dress Pattern (1969)
Alec Wilkinson, in his recent “Jazz Hands” (The New Yorker, March 11, 2013), a profile of the jazz pianist Jason Moran, misses a glorious opportunity to describe Moran’s Harlem apartment. He says that the living room has “a view of the Hudson River” and that it contains an “upright piano from his parents’ house.” But with regard to how the room is furnished and decorated, he doesn’t say. Wilkinson would no doubt scoff at my hunger for such details. “Jazz Hands” is, after all, a piece about jazz, not interior decoration. Nevertheless, descriptions of the rooms in which people live help illumine their character.

John Updike, in his absorbing essay “Fictional Houses” (Odd Jobs, 1991), refers to “the cozy quality of the brick rows of Pennsylvania small towns” and “the many subtle styles, much patched and revised, of wooden farmhouses” in New England, and says, “To describe these houses is halfway to describe the life lived in them.” In my opinion, the same can be said about the rooms, apartments, lofts, offices, and other places that the subjects of New Yorker profiles live, work, and hang out in: to describe these places is “halfway to describe the life lived in them.”

Whitney Balliett, in his great jazz profiles, often depicted the rooms his subjects lived and performed in. For example, in his “The Human Sound” (The New Yorker, December 26, 1970; included in Balliett’s 1979 collection American Singers), a profile of Bobby Short, he describes Short’s Carnegie Hall apartment as follows:

The small foyer on the first floor contained a desk, a big Queen Anne armchair, a bicycle, and a staircase. A turn-around kitchen opened off it. The living room, at the top of the stairs, was two stories high, with a vaulted ceiling and a row of high windows facing north. At one end were a small bar, a bathroom, and a second set of stairs. The stairs led to a spacious balcony, which served as Short’s bedroom. A bedroom window faced a small roof, where his cats, Rufus and Miss Brown, were aired. The furnishings were high-class Camp. A heavy glass-topped coffee table rested on a zebra-skin rug, and on the rug, beneath the table, were two metal lizards—one gilt, one brass. A pair of big daybeds, which were covered with bright African-looking material and leopard-skin pillows, flanked the table. Near the foyer stairs were a huge wooden lion, a stolid eighteenth-century Italian refectory table, and one of those roofed-in wicker wing chairs that still haunt old summer cottages on Naushon Island. An antler chandelier hung in the living room, and it was echoed by a Teddy Roosevelt leather chair with tusks as arms. Pictures of every description jammed the walls, and the window side of the room was lined with books and bric-a-brac.

Balliett’s room descriptions are so lovingly detailed, I want to enter them, sit in that Teddy Roosevelt chair with the tusk arms, and soak up the atmosphere. Here’s another Balliett apartment description – this from his great Jim Hall profile, “The Answer Is Yes” (The New Yorker, March 31, 1975; included in his 1977 collection Improvising):

When the Halls were married, he moved into her apartment, on West Twelfth Street. It faces south and is at eye level with chimney pots and the tops of ailanthus trees. Sunlight fills the living room all day. The off-white walls are hung with a lively assortment of lithographs, oils, and drawings. A tall cabinet, which contains hundreds of L.P.s, is flanked by full bookshelves. A sofa, a hassock, a fat floor pillow, a couple of canvas Japanese chairs, and a coffee table ring the window end of the room. An upright piano sits by the front door, and Hall’s electric guitar rests on a stand by the kitchen door.

The above-quoted passages are typical Balliett apartment descriptions. They’re almost “description for description’s sake,” akin to 17th century Dutch still life – “devised as a feast for the attentive eye” (Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing, 1983).

It seems to me that New Yorker descriptions of physical interiors divide into at least three categories:

1. Description done purely for the pleasure of describing interesting, beautiful things;

2. Description that illumines the subject’s character;

3. Description that furthers narrative.

The first two types are closely linked. For instance, Balliett descriptions are both “feasts for the attentive eye” and illustrations of the occupants’ lifestyle. A classic example of the third category is found in Janet Malcolm’s Ingrid Sischy profile, “A Girl of the Zeitgeist” (The New Yorker, October 20 & 27, 1986; included in Malcolm’s 1992 collection The Purloined Clinic). Malcolm begins her brilliant piece with a description of Rosalind Krauss’s loft:

Rosalind Krauss’s loft, on Greene Street, is one of the most beautiful living places in New York. Its beauty has a dark, forceful, willful character. Each piece of furniture and every object of use or decoration has evidently had to pass a severe test before being admitted into this disdainfully interesting room – a long, mildly begloomed rectangle with tall windows at either end, a sachlich white kitchen area in the center, a study, and a sleeping balcony. An arrangement of geometric dark-blue armchairs around a coffee table forms the loft’s sitting room, also furnished with, among other rarities, an antique armchair on splayed, carved feet and upholstered in a dark William Morris fabric; an assertive all-black Minimalist shaped-felt piece; a strange black-and-white photograph of ocean water; and a gold owl-shaped Art Deco table clock. But perhaps even stronger than the room’s aura of commanding originality is its sense of absences, its evocation of all the things that have been excluded, have been found wanting, have failed to capture the interest of Rosalind Krauss – which are most of the things in the world, the things of “good taste” and fashion and consumerism, the things we see in stores and in one another’s houses. No one can leave this loft without feeling a little rebuked: one’s own house suddenly seems cluttered, inchoate, banal.

Malcolm’s piece is structured around apartments, lofts, and studios. It uses them not just as organizing principles, but as a means of analyzing their occupants’ various notions of style.

An example of a room description that falls in all three of the above categories is Mark Singer’s memorable depiction of Goodman Ace’s living room (“Goody,” The New Yorker, April 4, 1977; re-titled “Words Fool Me,” and included in Singer’s wonderful 1988 collection Mr. Personality):

These days, the cottage of Ace’s own cottage industry is his apartment in the Ritz Tower – four spacious rooms of white walls and black-and-white tiles. The living room leads to a terrace that offers a view of Park Avenue below and Central Park to the northwest. Ace often used to sit on the terrace and read and work – a habit he sustained until a few years ago, when flocks of pigeons began to roost there. “Shoo, pigeons!” didn’t get rid of the birds, nor did the pigeon repellants, plastic windmills, or signs that said “No Pigeons Allowed,” so he finally gave up and retreated indoors. The apartment contains the same furniture that it has had for twenty years – off-white leather upholstery, a vague flavor of Art-Deco-in-decline, the aura of a stage setting. On one of the armchairs, there is a green cushion with white lettering  that says, “LAUGHTER IS THE MUSIC OF THE HEART.” A white grand piano stands in one corner of the room, and atop the piano are a ceramic vase filled with artificial roses, a thirty-year-old photograph of Jane Ace, an unframed photograph of Groucho inscribed “Dear Goody, Here Is Me. Groucho,” and an ineluctably stubborn pile of unanswered mail.

That “ineluctably stubborn pile of unanswered mail” functions as a segue to a discussion of Ace’s letter writing, particularly his Groucho Marx correspondence.

Interior description in today’s New Yorker profiles isn’t as detailed as it once was. The mention of one or two telling particulars appears to be preferred to extensive notation of a room’s contents. For example, here is the extent of David Remnick’s description of Israeli spymaster Meir Dagan’s Tel Aviv apartment: “The apartment is decorated with his canvases. They are naïve, sentimental, Orientalist—desert landscapes, a Bedouin, an old man in the Iranian town of Tabriz” (“The Vegetarian,” The New Yorker, September 3, 2012). In two quick, vivid strokes, Lauren Collins sketches the Paris office of Gerard Depaerdieu’s lawyer, Hervé Temime: “Temime, who represented Roman Polanski, sat at a desk, in front of spectacular windows framed by bright-yellow velour curtains. His printer was filled with bright-yellow paper” (“L’Étranger,” The New Yorker, February 25, 2013). Elizabeth Kolbert vivifies a room in Oostvaardersplassen’s administrative offices when she writes, “Vera picked me up one day at my hotel in Lelystad, and we drove over to the reserve’s administrative offices, where we had a cup of coffee in a room decorated with the mounted head of a very large black Heck bull” (“Recall of the Wild” (The New Yorker, December 24 & 31, 2012).

There are exceptions to the minimalist approach. Jeffrey Toobin, in his “Madoff’s Curveball” (The New Yorker, May 30, 2011) neatly conveys the look of Fred Wilpon’s office as follows:

The headquarters of the Wilpon empire resembles an English manor house transplanted to a high floor in Rockefeller Center. Wood panelling, thick carpets, and pastoral landscapes in heavy frames offer a serene contrast to the hubbub below. Soft drinks are decanted into crystal glasses. (No Coke; Pepsi is a Mets sponsor.) True, the muted television in the reception area is set to SNY—the Wilpons’ successful cable sports channel—and there is the obligatory LeRoy Neiman painting. But the Neiman shows the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange, rather than his customary jock kitsch, and the over-all feel of the offices is boardroom, not locker room.

Judith Thurman, in her “Ask Betty” (The New Yorker, November 12, 2012), unreels an admirable Balliettian run of interior detailing when she describes Betty Halbreich’s Park Avenue apartment:

You could not describe Halbreich’s décor as soberly tailored. The den is paneled in knotty cypress (“big in the fifties”), with pink chintz upholstery (“It used to be tartan”). The master bedroom has gingham walls and needlepoint rugs. There is a laundry suite, and a walk-in closet dedicated to Christmas decorations. In the formal dining room (Wedgwood-blue walls, opaline-glass chandelier, antique breakfront groaning with heirloom china), Halbreich’s banquet table was set for two.

But these depictions pale in comparison with my all-time favorite New Yorker interior description – John McPhee’s masterful evocation of the room in Otto’s farmhouse restaurant “where the customers sit and have their aperitifs while they wait for a message from the kitchen that it is time to go to table for dinner” (“Brigade de Cuisine,” The New Yorker, February 19, 1979; included in McPhee’s classic 1979 collection Giving Good Weight):

I remember from the first moment I walked into it the compact and offhand rural European character and feeling of that room. With its nonchalant miscellany of detail, it was beyond the margins of formal design, but it was too pleasurable merely to have been flung together and too thematic not to imply a tale. There were a pair of bullfighter prints – one called “La Lidia” and the other a depiction of a desencajonamiento – and protruding sharp-horned from the wall between these pictures was the head of a fighting bull. The animal had been raised on the dehesa of Pepe Alvarez and killed in the ring with a sword. Crossed Spanish swords had been hung above the fire. All around the room were wrought-iron Spanish sconces with small amber bulbs. There was a three-hundred-year-old map of the Danube, a two-hundred-year-old map of “Magna Britannia.” There were hand-carved cabinets. There were tall wicker chairs, Queen Anne chairs, and Spanish brass-studded leather chairs in groups on a red tile floor. I eventually learned that many of these things had come down through the chef’s family – to America from England via Spain. There were heavy red curtains on brass rods. The ceiling slanted upward in the mansard manner, with boards of tongue and groove. The silent paddle fan hung down between exposed checked beams. Staring back at the bull were the small glass eyes of a taxidermal fox – just its head and neck, on a plaque – and near it were photographs made in Alaska of dog foxes and vixens. A poster in one corner said “Extinct is forever” and presented line drawings of vanishing and vanished creatures – Cape lion (1860), quagga (1883), Labrador duck (1875), solenodon, snow leopard, northern kit fox.

Lofts, apartments, offices, farmhouses, rooms, having been willfully acquired, furnished, and decorated tell us much about their occupants, and their description is a major resource of the art of the profile.

Friday, June 3, 2011

May 30, 2011 Issue


One of the great things about art is the way it can redeem the discarded, the outmoded, the obsolete. Think of Joseph Cornell and the way he made assemblages out of what he called ephemera. As Charles Simic says, in his great essay on Cornell called “The Image Hunter” (The New York Review of Books, October 24, 2002; included in Simic’s 2006 collection Memory Piano):

If he [Cornell] had not eventually figured how to make original twentieth-century art out of his stashes of old movie magazines, moldy engravings, yellowed postcards, maps, guidebooks, film strips, photographs of ballet dancers, and hundreds of other items stored in shoe boxes and scrapbooks in his basement, they would have ended up at a dump or in a flea market.

I thought of Cornell when I was reading Andrea K. Scott’s “Futurism” in this week’s issue of the magazine. It’s about the artist Cory Arcangel, who uses obsolete computer equipment to generate drawings, sculptures, videos, and photographs. Scott says, “Arcangel finds an abject beauty in the way that modern technology is doomed to obsolescence.”

One of Arcangel’s best-known works is his video installation “Super Mario Clouds,” which he created, Scott says, by “taking the code to the classic 1985 Nintendo cartridge and erasing everything but the clouds, which typically drift behind the action.” In “Futurism,” Scott does a good job describing Arcangel’s art. But as I read the piece, I found myself resisting it. Arcangel’s virtual bowlers, pixellated clouds, YouTube clips of cats jumping on pianos, Photoshop-gradient photographs, etc., just don’t work for me. I wonder if they work for Scott. Nowhere in her piece does the word “pleasure” occur, unless you count “gloriously cheesy,” which is her description of a website that Arcangel has developed. As an art critic, Scott is nothing if not sensual. Her “Critic’s Notebook” pieces are filled with sensual, tactile description and expressions of pleasure. That’s what I like about them. I recall her ravishing review of the Lynda Benglis show at New Museum (“Making a Splash,” The New Yorker, February 28, 2011), in which she said, “It was a knotty time to make art, and Bengalis literalized it in tangles of painted and glitter-flecked cotton bunting, which gave way to elegant arabesques of pleated metal and Zen-punk wonders in glass and ceramic.” I devour description like that. “Futurism” is almost completely devoid of it. The reason, I think, is that Arcangel’s work didn’t sufficiently excite Scott’s considerable descriptive power.

Jeffrey Toobin’s “Madoff’s Curveball,” is also in this week’s issue. It’s about New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon and Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. It’s a fascinating story and Toobin tells it very well. One aspect of it troubles me. Toobin shows that the complaint lodged against Wilpon by bankruptcy trustee Irving Picard contains a false accusation. Picard alleges that Wilpon and his partner, Saul Katz, were warned by their financial manager, Peter Stamos, that Madoff was “too good to be true.” But, according to Toobin, Picard knew when he made this allegation that Stamos actually said the opposite. Toobin says:

There is something troubling, however, about the way the Picard complaint portrays Stamos as the Cassandra of the Madoff scandal—the person whose persistent warnings were ignored by Wilpon and Katz. Wilpon’s lawyers at Davis Polk discovered that Stamos had given a deposition during Picard’s investigation, and the transcript gives a very different picture of Stamos’s state of mind from that portrayed in Picard’s complaint. “I’m embarrassed to say that I said to Mr. Katz on a number of occasions that my assumption is that Mr. Madoff is . . . among the most honest and honorable men that we will ever meet,” Stamos testified. “And number two, that he is perhaps one of the—my assumption is he’s perhaps one of the best hedge fund managers in modern times. . . . All the way to the time when the fraud was discovered, I had the same conclusion.” In fact, it appears that no one in the Stamos firm had any words of warning about Madoff’s Ponzi scheme until after his fraud was discovered.

To me this is damning evidence against Picard. He’s making an accusation against Wilpon that he knows is false. It would seem to me to be grounds for dismissal of the complaint against Wilpon and for discipline proceedings against Picard. Curiously – and this is the part that bothers me – Toobin not only shrinks from drawing this conclusion, he also appears to rationalize Picard’s wrongful action. Toobin says:

Complaints in civil cases are designed to be argumentative documents, but Picard’s words about Stamos seem typical of an approach that seems to find malevolent intent in virtually everything Wilpon and Katz did.

But surely Picard’s words are more than just “argumentative”; they’re blatantly false! I find it hard to accept that the court would allow Picard to get away with such an underhanded tactic. I wish that Toobin, instead of trying to excuse Picard’s action as “typical,” had forcefully condemned it. In his failure to do so, he mars what is otherwise a consummate piece of journalism.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

January 3, 2011 Issue


If you delight, as I do, in surprising word combinations verging on the surreal (e.g., “falling chocolate trunk filled with frozen chocolate powder, on a forest floor of lime-and-mint yogurt, with almond praline, puffed quinoa, and green-pistachio streusel”), you will devour Adam Gopnik’s “Sweet Revolution,” in this week’s issue. Gopnik’s charming, sensuous piece begins and ends with soufflé. In between, it takes us to some exotic restaurants in Barcelona, and immerses us in table talk (“This opened us up to the whole question of tiramisù – opened an incredible world to us”) that’s almost as surreal as the avant-garde desserts it describes. Sitting next to the woodstove, looking out at the thickly falling snow, I soaked this piece up the way trifle sponge cake absorbs cognac, and I hungered for more. What a great way to start the year! And it’s proof, at long last, that Gopnik hasn't lost his wonderfully light touch.

Second Thoughts: I’ve decided to revisit this post because I feel I’ve failed to do justice to two other excellent pieces in the January 3rd issue. The two items I’m referring to are John Colapinto’s “Just Have Less” and Jeffrey Toobin’s “Casualties of Justice.” I just want to briefly say that I enjoyed the Colapinto piece immensely, particularly the description of the weaving technique called intrecciato. Regarding the disturbing “Casualties of Justice,” I was impressed by the way Toobin constructed his narrative from myriad interviews and transcripts. The narrative slant against Marsh (“Marsh and his colleagues took an important but fairly routine political corruption investigation in Alaska and tried to leverage it into a prosecution of one of the leading political figures in the country. In doing so, they failed themselves and the Justice Department”) that emerges late in the piece seems at odds with the story’s tagline (“The Justice Department clearly wronged Senator Ted Stevens. Did it also wrong one of his prosecution?”). Toobin appears to answer the tag’s question in the negative on the basis of little more than that Marsh was part of the legal team that botched Stevens’s prosecution. The article leaves me wondering what exactly Marsh did that constituted misconduct.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

October 4, 2010 Issue


Jeffrey Toobin’s “The Scholar,” in this week’s issue, is dull and lifeless. I don’t mean just the subject matter is dull and lifeless; I’m talking about the writing, too. In fact, I’m talking especially about the writing. Lots of articles in the magazine are about subjects I find uninteresting, but I read them anyway for the writing, purely as writing. And great writing can bring even the most unpromising material to life: see, for example, Nicholson Baker’s recent piece on video games. But there isn’t an inspired line in “The Scholar.” It’s a workmanlike assemblage of quotations, mostly from court documents, about a fraud case. The magazine labels it an “Annals of Law” piece, but there’s scarcely any law in it. Toobin seldom enters the narrative frame. At one point, about two-thirds of the way through the piece, when he says, “I went to Alaska in August and, one morning soon after my arrival, Harris told me to go to the lobby of my hotel, where I would be met and taken to see Yould,” I perked up and started reading with more attention, hoping for a vivid description, a scrap of physical detail, an unusual word combination – something writerly. Instead, this is what Toobin provides: “We entered through a side door and went into what looked like a downscale corporate apartment, with generic furniture and without personal touches.” Unlike Calvin Trillin’s “Annals of Crime” pieces, Toobin's story fails to give us any sense of place. Unlike Janet Malcolm’s great “Iphigenia In Forest Hills” (The New Yorker, May 3, 2010), his article fails to capture and convey the court atmosphere. Toobin was, at one time, a government lawyer. He’s written a mildly interesting account of the experience called “Opening Arguments” (1991). In “The Scholar,” he’s still very much the government lawyer, ever skeptical of the defendant’s arguments. It doesn’t make for much of a story if all we are getting is a plain language version of the government’s case. Yet, that is what “The Scholar” delivers. Toobin concludes well before the judge does that “There is, in fact, very little evidence to corroborate her claims of abuse and harassment, especially in recent years.” The story answers its own tagline – “She was brilliant. Was she a fraud?” – with a resounding yes, guilty as charged. I think the real problem with “The Scholar,” aside from the lack of inspired writing, is that Rachel Yould is too easy a target. Her guilt appears open and shut. She's even pleaded guilty. So why are we reading about her? So we can feel morally superior? So we can look down on her and judge her? Well, there’s damn little reading pleasure in that for me. Sometimes I wonder if Toobin missed his calling. He’s more a judge than he is a writer.