Showing posts with label Ryan Lizza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ryan Lizza. Show all posts
Friday, December 20, 2013
December 16, 2013 Issue
Maybe I’m just in a pre-Christmas funk, but I find this
week’s New Yorker remarkably uninspiring. Maybe it’s the price of those spicy Red Snappers
at The King Cole that turned me off. Sixty dollars for two of them,
according to Shauna Lyon’s “Bar Tab.” Obscene! Or maybe it’s the dull prospect
of plowing through two pieces on Washington politics (Evan Osnos’s “Strong
Vanilla” and “Ryan Lizza’s “State of Deception”). Do I want to read about
Cuvier’s proof of extinction (Elizabeth Kolbert’s “The Lost World, Part One”)
or “The mystery surrounding a copy of Galileo’s pivotal treatise” (Nicholas
Schmidle’s “A Very Rare Book”) or what happens when God first unleashes Satan
on Job (Joan Acocella’s “Misery”) or Britney Spears’s latest career move (Sasha
Frere-Jones’s “Brit Pop”)? No, no, no, and definitely no. I’ve got better
things to do, like shovel the snow from in front of the woodshed door. But
there’s always a bit of nourishment in every New
Yorker, no matter how unpromising its contents may first appear. This week,
I found it in David Denby’s marvelous “Grand Scam,” a review of David O.
Russell’s American Hustler. In a
parenthesis worthy of the Master herself (Hail Kael!), Denby writes, “In a dizzying touch, suits hanging on a garment conveyor
whirl past them as they kiss.” Ah, the surreal reality of that garment
conveyor! I love it. Thank you, Mr. Denby. With one sentence, you breathe life
into a moribund New Yorker.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
June 18, 2012 Issue
Reading The New Yorker, I navigate by the star of thisness.
By thisness, I mean “any detail that draws abstraction toward itself and seems
to kill that abstraction with a puff of palpability, any detail that centers
our attention with its concretion” (James Wood, How Fiction Works). I regret to
report that there’s precious little thisness in this week’s issue, which is mostly concerned with politics, a subject that rarely generates textured writing. There are exceptions, e.g., A. J. Liebling’s The
Earl of Louisiana (1961) and Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Prophet of Love (2004), but not the pieces in this week's issue.
Peter Hessler’s “Arab Summer,” which describes the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to
power in Egypt, has a “puff of palpability” near the beginning (“Rifaat stashes
his cans of shoe polish behind the statue of Horus”). But more typical of the
piece’s wording is this line: “The Brotherhood is extremely hierarchical,
and each member belongs to a five-person usra, or “family,” which meets
regularly.” However, Hessler’s piece is positively inspired compared to Ryan
Lizza’s “The Second Term.” The closest it gets to thisness is this insipid description of
the Bachelor Farmer’s menu: “A hundred people who each gave five thousand
dollars to the President’s campaign dined on a salad of house-smoked pork and a
choice of roasted chicken or Copper River sockeye salmon (a vegetarian menu was
also available).” As for Jane Mayer’s “Bully Pulpit,” I skimmed it
and quickly moved on. Evangelist talk-show hosts are far too easy targets for The New Yorker. They’re
irrational; we know they’re irrational. Forget them. There are bigger and
better fish to fry. The fourth political piece in this week’s issue is Jill
Lepore’s “Benched.” It’s sort of a companion to Jeffrey Toobin’s recent “Money
Unlimited” (The New Yorker, May 21, 2012), except that its focus is more
historical. Both pieces lack thisness. But they’re frustrating for another
reason, too. Their analysis is driven by the same tired old Left-Right,
Conservative-Liberal dichotomy that political writers have been applying
for decades. Is there not some other lens we can use to try to understand our politics?
See, for example, David Runciman’s use of risk assessment in some of the pieces
collected in his excellent The Politics of Good Intentions (2006).
Postscript: Amid the abrasive, obnoxious politicians, revolutionaries, evangelists, and rappers crowding the pages of this week's issue, Eamon Grennon's swooping sand martins stand out - delightful, vital presences, "fill[ing] salt air with their shrill chatter" ("Sand Martins").
Postscript: Amid the abrasive, obnoxious politicians, revolutionaries, evangelists, and rappers crowding the pages of this week's issue, Eamon Grennon's swooping sand martins stand out - delightful, vital presences, "fill[ing] salt air with their shrill chatter" ("Sand Martins").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

