In the New Yorker...

[Jeff Wrangler]

The article on Manford, "Family Values" was good. She is the person who started PFLAG.

The publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News was at Stonewall, and was one of the founders of the Gay Activists' Alliance. It's been on my mind to write to him to ask if he knew the Manfords.

But the highlight of the reviews section is an unassuming piece, "Oddballs and Odysseys" by Casey Cep about the little-known author Charles Portis.

That's next up on my TNY reading list.

It was also bittersweet to read the fiction "Evensong" by Laurie Colwin, the food and fiction author who died in 1992.

There was something about her in TNY some time ago.

But taking the Manford article as an example, have you ever noticed there is a distinct pattern to these TNY articles about people? I would say almost invariably, they start out with something about why the subject is notable, then they go into the person's background (family background, where they grew up, education, and so forth), and then they come back to the activity for which the subject is notable.

I'm not criticizing here. It's just something I've noticed. Sort of like what we've discussed about how articles will quote someone, then in the same sentence describe who the person is (sometimes at length), and then on the end of the sentence tack on "said."

[Front-Ranger]

But taking the Manford article as an example, have you ever noticed there is a distinct pattern to these TNY articles about people? I would say almost invariably, they start out with something about why the subject is notable, then they go into the person's background (family background, where they grew up, education, and so forth), and then they come back to the activity for which the subject is notable.
[/font][/size]

That is a fairly conventional structure in journalism. It was developed by the Wall Street Journal (although TNY and others would probably claim ownership). The first sentence or two grabs your attention, followed by the "nut graph" that gives the context. For instance, in the article about Portis, the author starts out by referring to his wish that Shakespeare had written about Arkansas. You don't often find those two names together.

[serious crayons]

That is a fairly conventional structure in journalism. It was developed by the Wall Street Journal (although TNY and others would probably claim ownership). The first sentence or two grabs your attention, followed by the "nut graph" that gives the context. For instance, in the article about Portis, the author starts out by referring to his wish that Shakespeare had written about Arkansas. You don't often find those two names together.

Yes, but following the nut graph immediately with the person's background is not ideal, IMO, unless their background really determined whatever they do that's the story's subject (hypothetical e.g., Joe Blow grew up homeless and now he helps homeless people). Personally, I'd do another section on the present day and then go into their past.

I hadn't noticed TNY doing this excessively, but if they do that's another irritating thing. And yes, add that to "Joe Blow, who grew up homeless and now helps homeless people, said." And starting almost all articles with a particular date and place. So instead of something more general or quirky -- "Joe Blow weeps whenever he thinks about homeless people" -- it's "On July 14, 2022, Joe Blow entered a homeless shelter on the north side of Milwaukee."

And throw in their use of diareses and -- the worst -- spelling out large numbers.

 

[Jeff Wrangler]

I hadn't noticed TNY doing this excessively, but if they do that's another irritating thing.

(You want irritating? I'll give you irritating. I just wrote a response to this, and when I clicked on Preview, I got that "Only Registered Members" B.S. again, and had to log in again.  )

Anyway, I guess I don't really find that TNY pattern irritating, really. I just noticed that there seems to be a form that everybody follows--maybe has to follow.

OK, well, maybe it does irritate me--at least a little.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'm just settling down to read that one. I didn't finish "The History of Fatigue" in that issue. Not one of Adam Gopnik's finest.

Yeah, that was kind of ... eh.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Guess what? S&M reenvisions Brokeback Mountain as a conversation between two urban hipsters of today in the next issue. I didn't find it funny but there were a couple of clever references. I even thought it was a bit patronizing but I suppose that is another thing that satire is allowed to do. Your thoughts would be welcome: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/04/24/brokeback-mountain-in-manhattan

Thanks for the tip, FRiend. I didn't find it funny or even interesting -- kind of bland satirizing of gay NYC hipsters sprinkled with cowboy references but aside from that and the characters' names really having nothing to do with Brokeback Mountain.That sort of stereotypical satire seems worn out and, since it's not actually funny, pretty pointless.

Well, I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree on this one. I just read it now, and I found it quite funny. Maybe you need to be a gay man of a certain age. ...

[serious crayons]

Maybe you need to be a gay man of a certain age. ...

Maybe so.


Meanwhile, imagine the commotion from Mr. Shawn's grave about this line in an April 25 review of the TV series Dead Ringers:

"The physicians, who are stars in their field (and British expatriates in America), also chase after a multimillion-dollar investment from a Sackler-esque heiress, Rebecca Parker (an exhilaratingly cunty Jennifer Ehle), to launch their own birthing center?a shining institution on a hill that they hope will change ?the way women birth forever.?

[Jeff Wrangler]

Is that even a word? 

Shouldn't it at least be c _  n _ -like? 

From the review of Beef. I need to look up the meanings of woo-woo and bougie. 

[Front-Ranger]

The May 8 issue is kind of the coronation issue. I'm surprised they came up with so much to write about King Charles III but I guess Rebecca Mead had quite a lot of time to come up with the material. Comparing that article with "Behind the Lens" about Jackie Kennedy is like the mirror bookends in BBM. Charles was born a somebody who now wants to be a nobody. Jackie was a nobody who grew up to become a somebody. A review of the new biography Camera Girl by Carl Anthony, it includes the following quote about her junior year at Paris's Sorbonne: "Jackie perfected a knowledge of 'how to be "on," to make an intentional impression, to invent herself into a character.'"

[Front-Ranger]

Today I read for the second time Rebecca Mead's review of "Spare" by Prince Harry and J. R. Moehringer, the ghostwriter. She was struck by the many parallels to the play Hamlet in the book and has admiration for Moehringer.