In the New Yorker...

[serious crayons]

Bravo! Good thinking! 

"Quotative inversion"? 

Sorry, but I think that's funny. 

I wish Mary Norris, the aforementioned New Yorker proofreader who has written a book and a bunch of articles and I think even has a TED talk, would address the subject. I looked her book up on Google Books and searched "quotes" and other possible references, but nada.

Yet at some point it must have come up. It's the weirdest thing the New Yorker does. There is widespread distaste for this practice outside the magazine, but nobody seems to know whether it's an actual ban and, if so, why. Why would they refuse so stubbornly to adopt a style that isn't grammatically incorrect and reads much more smoothly?

[Jeff Wrangler]

I wish Mary Norris, the aforementioned New Yorker proofreader who has written a book and a bunch of articles and I think even has a TED talk, would address the subject. I looked her book up on Google Books and searched "quotes" and other possible references, but nada.

Yet at some point it must have come up. It's the weirdest thing the New Yorker does. There is widespread distaste for this practice outside the magazine, but nobody seems to know whether it's an actual ban and, if so, why. Why would they refuse so stubbornly to adopt a style that isn't grammatically incorrect and reads much more smoothly?

Obstinacy?

[Jeff Wrangler]

So I just finished the Russia article (March 6). Depressing and scary but important. ... 

[Jeff Wrangler]

I just now finished the March 6 article about the hedge fund guy who tried to destroy Herbalife.

To me the most interesting thing in the article was this assessment by the author:

"Strikingly, many of the themes and slogans that multilevel-marketing companies favor--lots of gilt, and promises that "we are going to make you rich"--are the same ones employed by Donald Trump, whose pledge to solve Middle America's economic woes helped propel him to the Presidency."

[serious crayons]

I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere that I was comparing how Time covers a news issue or event compared to how the New Yorker does. So I finally finished the story about Dylan Roof's trial. It was far more in-depth and contained more cultural context than Time's probably did, but it was mostly pretty straightfoward, so maybe not drastically different from Time's.

But then you get to the final section, basically a long paragraph. Wow. It is devastating. And it never, ever would have been in a Time story (mainly because it involved a first-person anecdote about something the writer experienced after the trial -- I don't think Time does that). I wont's spoil it in case anyone is still planning to read it.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere that I was comparing how Time covers a news issue or event compared to how the New Yorker does. So I finally finished the story about Dylan Roof's trial. It was far more in-depth and contained more cultural context than Time's probably did, but it was mostly pretty straightfoward, so maybe not drastically different from Time's.

But then you get to the final section, basically a long paragraph. Wow. It is devastating. And it never, ever would have been in a Time story (mainly because it involved a first-person anecdote about something the writer experienced after the trial -- I don't think Time does that). I wont's spoil it in case anyone is still planning to read it.

The Roof trial article was very good, even by New Yorker standards.

[Jeff Wrangler]

If you didn't read Kathryn Schulz's March 6 article about calling your congressman/woman, I recommend going back and reading it. I found it informative and entertaining, and some of the vignettes from politicians and their staffers that Schulz recounts are very funny.

I like Schulz's "voice."

[serious crayons]

If you didn't read Kathryn Schulz's March 6 article about calling your congressman/woman, I recommend going back and reading it. I found it informative and entertaining, and some of the vignettes from politicians and their staffers that Schulz recounts are very funny.

I like Schulz's "voice."

Me too! Plus she was the one who wrote that terrifying article last year about the potential effects of an earthquake in the Northwest.

I'll look for it.

[Front-Ranger]

“I love reading anything about gigantic animate blobs of molten iron who secretly long to be concert pianists.” George Saunders, “By the Book” in the NYT.

[Front-Ranger]

Also, when the NYT asked, "If you could require the president to read one book, what would it be?" he said:

I’d recommend that 18th-century classic on political strategy by the Count deRinchy, called “A Tim’ly Resignation Doth Suit a Gentleman Well.” There is also his lesser-known classic, “Labor Thee Always to Not Insult or Afright Those Thou Wouldst Leadeth.” DeRinchy also was a poet of some repute, and his little volume “The Truth Remains True, Even Amongst a Sea of Deliberate Falsehoods” is a timeless classic.