Author Topic: In the New Yorker...  (Read 504948 times)

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,183
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1000 on: November 05, 2014, 10:14:32 pm »
I can see where both would be annoying.

From what I know, I believe the answers are: corn, oats and rice don't have gluten, and margarine is worse for you than butter. Saturated fat is no longer thought to cause clogged arteries or heart disease. You might want to double-check both with Google. For more on the butter topic, look for a book called 'The Big Fat Surprise' by Nina Teicholz, a journalist who spent nine years investigating the standard weight-loss advice to avoid fat.

Thanks. Well, I know that I lose weight when I really cut back on carbs, rather than on fat (meat).

I wonder whether it makes a difference if the margarine is made with olive oil?

I need to read more labels at the grocery store.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,459
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1001 on: November 06, 2014, 11:09:26 am »
This discussion is getting really interesting, so I've created a new topic for it: On margarine/butter and the whole cholesterol thing. Let's discuss this with a wider audience than just rabid New Yorker readers!
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,183
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1002 on: November 12, 2014, 03:00:35 pm »
Rachel Aviv is a writer for whom I am beginning to watch when The New Yorker arrives. I'm finding her article on sexual abuse in the Hasidic community in New York (Nov. 10) fascinating.

What's really fascinating to me is how the Hasidim are pretty much left alone to manage their own affairs, even when it comes to infractions of the civil law. That got me thinking about those Muslims who would impose Sharia law. It seems pretty clear that the difference is that the Hasidim stick to themselves and make no attempt to impose their ways on outsiders, whereas Islamic fundamentalists would impose Sharia on everybody.  :(
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1003 on: November 12, 2014, 08:59:08 pm »
Rachel Aviv is a writer for whom I am beginning to watch when The New Yorker arrives..

Me too! So much so that last week I went to her website and looked up some of her old articles, for the New Yorker and elsewhere. I'd read a few of the New Yorker ones before and had been impressed.

Quote
I'm finding her article on sexual abuse in the Hasidic community in New York (Nov. 10) fascinating

Oh, I didn't know that's what it was about! I tend to find articles about Hassidim kind of dutiful, so I was going to skip it. But if there's sexual abuse involved, I'm more interested, for this reason: There were a wave of high-profile sex-abuse cases in the Amish community around here a few years ago, discovered only after some women left the community and disclosed it (as I recall). Same thing -- an insular, closed community. Same with Catholic priests, for that matter.

Those cases make me grateful for the current laws and attitudes about sex abuse, at least in this culture. Yes, sometimes people do go overboard or underboard with them, for sure. But when you see what happens in closed communities it's a reminder that, in the past, that was undoubtedly prevalent everywhere -- in mainstream communities,in many culture. It's mind-blowing to think how many people suffered as a result.



Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1004 on: November 12, 2014, 09:06:31 pm »
I know that somewhere on this thread (perhaps more than once) I have discussed a great Shouts & Murmurs I saw years ago that was full of words that are normally used only with a modifying suffix (ex: nonchalant).

Here's a poem I saw on Slate the other day that does the same thing. It's not quite as good (maybe because I prefer prose to poem form, or maybe because this one is more cutesy), but it's pretty inventive. It's by David McCord.

    I know a little man both ept and ert.
    An intro-? extro-? No, hes just a vert.
    Sheveled and couth and kempt, pecunious, ane,
    His image trudes upon the ceptive brain.

    When life turns sipid and the mind is traught,
    The spirit soars as I would sist it ought.
    Chalantly then, like any gainly goof,
    My digent self is sertive, choate, loof.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/11/10/_5_poems_with_fantastic_wordplay_prepositions_kempt_twinkle_twinkle_little.html



Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,459
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1005 on: November 13, 2014, 11:01:31 am »
... by David McCord.

    I know a little man both ept and ert.
    An intro-? extro-? No, hes just a vert.
    Sheveled and couth and kempt, pecunious, ane,
    His image trudes upon the ceptive brain.

    When life turns sipid and the mind is traught,
    The spirit soars as I would sist it ought.
    Chalantly then, like any gainly goof,
    My digent self is sertive, choate, loof.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/11/10/_5_poems_with_fantastic_wordplay_prepositions_kempt_twinkle_twinkle_little.html

 :laugh: It sounds faintly Gaelic!
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1006 on: November 13, 2014, 09:20:53 pm »
:laugh: It sounds faintly Gaelic!

I see what you mean. Of course, the "little man" automatically calls to mind a leprechaun-like figure.

Many of those must have been ordinary words at one point, don't you think? Then they were modified with in and un and non and the like, and somehow the root words fell out of use, perhaps because better words came along for the positive form of the adjective but no better negative forms emerged.



Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,459
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1007 on: November 14, 2014, 11:53:49 am »
Yes, I agree. They also sound Shakespearean, especially "couth".
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,459
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1008 on: November 14, 2014, 05:52:28 pm »
In this week's issue, the fiction offering is "The Alaska of Giants and Gods", by Dave Eggers. I have read his books before, and if this story is an excerpt from an upcoming book, I will probably read it. Although it is yet another commentary on the breakdown of families and civilization as we know it, he does manage to convey the depths of a woman's psyche admirably. The writing is rather quirky as it always is with Eggers. Stream of consciousness, but the exact opposite of Joycean. It can be offputting but I warmed up as the story went along and it had a very strong finish. I've often felt exactly like the protagonist, Josie, adrift (literally) and thinking "these people are nuts!"
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,497
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #1009 on: November 14, 2014, 09:06:27 pm »
How did I miss that? I went through the table of contents and didn't notice his byline. I must be so used to skipping the "Fiction" section.

I see it now, though, and will probably also read it. I've read only one of his books, his memoir, but it was good. I'd rather read him than Tom Hanks any day (from what I heard about the Tom Hanks story).