Author Topic: In the New Yorker...  (Read 2459480 times)

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,783
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3660 on: January 11, 2025, 09:26:48 pm »
I'm reading "Love and Theft" in the latest issue about an author in the romantasy genre stealing another's plot and characters. It's interesting

I'm reading that now. It is very interesting. I'm only up to magazine page 24, but on page 23 the author wrote, "Book packagers assign teams of writers and editors to create content." This sounds to me like nothing particularly new. I'm sure I read a long time ago that "Carolyn Keane," the "author" of the Nancy Drew books, was actually a team of writers.

The discussion of the genre is reminding me of a once-favorite TV show from as long ago as 2008-2009. I may have mentioned this somewhere before. It was called "Moonlight" (it had nothing to do with the much-later movie of the same name), and the main characters were an L.A. private eye, who happened to be a vampire, and a human woman, who was a reporter for an online news magazine. The show lasted only one season. I have it on DVD, and I've binge-watched it.
"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: 31,170
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3661 on: January 15, 2025, 12:40:13 pm »
Yes, and there's also Frankenstein and Dracula and a ton of fairy tales, so the genre is as old as can be. Wasn't Beowolf's mother a dragon or something. She was played by Angelina Jolie in the movie and I thought she was very believable.

The January 20 issue came today...terrific cover. Made me laugh out loud. For now, I skipped over the third installment of John McPhee's memoirs. I enjoyed the first installment, but the second, not as much. The profile of Lorne Michaels weighs in at 13 pages so I thought I would just skim it, but it turns out to be very interesting. In fact, I stayed awake into the night reading it which just never happens anymore. Many quotes and photos from the original SNL cast members. We need more escapist stuff like this going forward through this horrible month.

I won't watch the Inauguration but of course I'll have to pay attention to what happens the first few days. I hope it will be a total mess to teach them a lesson or two.
"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,416
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3662 on: January 15, 2025, 08:03:52 pm »
Whatever happened to Republicans with brain cells?

There are some left. Presumably, they're all busy building fallout shelters someplace in the desert.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2025, 12:32:38 pm by Front-Ranger »

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,170
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3663 on: January 17, 2025, 09:09:23 pm »
Okay, I have delved into the McPhee memoir, and there's another passage about word games. This time he talks about Spelling Bee, which I think is a lot like the Merriam-Webster Blossom, which I like. He has this passage:
Quote
"While the words are meant to put me to sleep, they ignite my philogiston and stand me straight up out of bed to write them down."
Google doesn't know that word, philogiston. I think McPhee is playing with us. I do understand the idea of lying awake at night thinking up words with a specific number of letters. I don't get up and write them down though. I think of it as a memory exercise. Most mornings, I remember the words, which is reassuring.
"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,416
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3664 on: January 18, 2025, 01:34:57 pm »
Google doesn't know that word, philogiston.

 :o

In confronting this mystery, I attempted to look it up but kept getting phlogiston, "a theory postulating the existence of a fire-like element dubbed phlogiston, contained within combustible bodies." Doesn't sound like it would fit the context of Spelling Bee. Could this be one of those once in a decade (at most!) New Yorker copy editing failures??!

Then I tried philologist and found "a person who studies the history of languages, particularly through the analysis of literature," which seemed more likely, so it could be a misspelling or some kind of wordplay, since McPhee talks about "igniting" it.

But I looked up the article online and it said phlogiston. One of those situations where a misspelling in print is fixed online (as I had to do the other day when a snarky reader emailed to say I'd misspelled "dentil molding" as "dental" -- hey, it looks like a row of teeth! -- so we changed it online and luckily it hadn't gone to print yet).

But then I looked in the print version in the magazine, which finally arrived yesterday. It does say phlogiston.

Hey, McPhee, read your ... oh wait, I was going to say read your Strunk & White, but I found a copy of Elements of Style online and it doesn't have a rule against using big fancy words.

But then I remembered who does: Mark Twain! ?Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do.? Twain's quote may be less of an ironclad law than something you'd find in Strunk & White, but I will say reporters follow rules like never say "utilized," say "used."



Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,170
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3665 on: January 18, 2025, 07:18:27 pm »
I double checked and you're right. It does say phlogiston. I was looking at it in dim light and since he was talking about words, my brain decided it was "philo..." Thanks for setting this straight.
"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,170
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3666 on: January 24, 2025, 01:17:50 pm »
I'd be interested in what people think of the article on sleeplessness by Adam Gopnik in this week's issue, which also covers dreaming, circadian rhythms, and sleep's role in health.
"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,416
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3667 on: January 24, 2025, 04:46:07 pm »
Haven't got that issue yet, I don't think, but I often get them on Saturdays. Plus I just resubscribed because apparently my subscription had lapsed, and it always takes a couple of weeks to get back on track. I'll come back to this!



Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,783
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3668 on: January 24, 2025, 05:48:45 pm »
I'd be interested in what people think of the article on sleeplessness by Adam Gopnik in this week's issue, which also covers dreaming, circadian rhythms, and sleep's role in health.

I don't get the week's issue until the week with the cover date. I'm presuming you mean an issue with a cover date of January 27?
"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: 31,170
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3669 on: January 24, 2025, 06:25:54 pm »
I don't understand why I get the issues on Tuesdays when I'm out in the boonies.
"chewing gum and duct tape"