In the New Yorker...

[Jeff Wrangler]

At lunch today I finished the Dec. 23-30, 2013, article about "plant neurobiology," so called. I found it very interesting. It makes me want to read The Secret Life of Plants, even if that book has been discredited.

Has anyone read The Secret Life of Plants?

Oh, yes, I also recommend Roz Chast's "Nondenominational Carols." 

[Front-Ranger]

I've read parts of it. I didn't know it had been discredited. I'm still reading that issue and there are three articles I'm especially interested in:

Elizabeth Kolbert's The Lost World, Part Two
Emily Eakin's The Civilization Kit (I've finished this one)
Michael Pollan's The Intelligent Plant

I wonder if they set out to do an environmental issue or it just happened that way!

[serious crayons]

I haven't read The Secret Life of Plants, but now I'm curious about how it has been discredited.

I did read Michael Pollan's The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World and it is excellent.

I'm in the middle of a duty article about drug trafficking on the Mosquito Coast. It's sad and horrifying.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'm in the middle of a duty article about drug trafficking on the Mosquito Coast. It's sad and horrifying.

I just started that one. The whole subject sounds depressing. 

[serious crayons]

I just started that one. The whole subject sounds depressing. 

It is.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'm in the middle of a duty article about drug trafficking on the Mosquito Coast. It's sad and horrifying.

I just started that one. The whole subject sounds depressing. 

It is.

Figured as much. 

[serious crayons]

Meanwhile, I'm also reading the profile of Jennifer Weiner in the Jan. 13 issue. Much lighter, but I already follow the controversies surrounding male and female writers and literary vs. popular novels, so it's pretty old news to me. Plus, much of it is about events that took place online (which is why I'm familiar with them), which gives the piece and oddly airless and inconsequential-seeming quality.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'm puzzled.

In the Theatre/Now Playing section of the January 6 issue, I noticed an entry for "a musical entertainment with panache and precision" called A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder. When I read the description, I immediately recognized the plot of an old (1949) and very delightful Alec Guinness movie called Kind Hearts and Coronets:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041546/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The similarity even extends to one actor playing eight different roles, as Guinness does in the movie.

There is, however, no recognition in The New Yorker of this relationship.

Is this because The New Yorker no longer employs anyone who would know such a thing? Or does The New Yorker no longer care? Or does The New Yorker think it no longer has any readers who would know or care?

 

[southendmd]

Jeff, you are correct about the connection between the new musical and the Alec Guinness film.  IIRC, the original review surely recognized this fact.  The play opened in October/November and was reviewed earlier.  The "now playing" blurb is just that, a blurb. 

BTW, I saw this play last week and it was great fun!

[Jeff Wrangler]

Jeff, you are correct about the connection between the new musical and the Alec Guinness film.  IIRC, the original review surely recognized this fact.  The play opened in October/November and was reviewed earlier.  The "now playing" blurb is just that, a blurb. 

BTW, I saw this play last week and it was great fun!

It ought to be. The movie is wonderful.

If one of the magazine's regular critics did a full-on review of it, I must have missed it.

I knew in a moment it was Kind Hearts and Coronets. Clever idea to make a musical out of it.