In the New Yorker...

[serious crayons]

Some articles are so well written that I find myself zipping through them even though I'm not interested in the subject. "Dr. Robot" by D. T. Max is such an article.

I do that, too. I haven't done it with "Dr. Robot," and D.T. Max probably wouldn't be as big a draw for me as some other New Yorker writers (I read and liked Max's stuff about David Foster Wallace, but then DFW is already a subject of interest to me). But Malcolm Gladwell, Ariel Levy, Adam Gopnik, Jia Tolentino and others would be enough of a draw on their names alone. The writer I am most likely to open straight to before I even look at anything else is David Sedaris, but his subjects are always personal/universal enough that they'd be of interest anyway.

[Front-Ranger]

I tried to like "The Stone" by Louise Erdrich in the September 9 issue. But I was strangely unmoved by the fable. So I went to an online interview with the author, where she says that the stone, which is the main character in the story, is neither benevolent or malevolent. "It is indifferent," Erdrich says. And that's how I felt about the story.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I tried to like "The Stone" by Louise Erdrich in the September 9 issue. But I was strangely unmoved by the fable. So I went to an online interview with the author, where she says that the stone, which is the main character in the story, is neither benevolent or malevolent. "It is indifferent," Erdrich says. And that's how I felt about the story.

I read it, too, because of Louise Erdrich, but I didn't think much of it.

[serious crayons]

I interviewed Louise Erdrich about 20 years ago, a year or two after she'd gone through a messy time in her life. She had just published the first book after her husband/mentor/writing partner had committed suicide. Which happened not long after she'd gone to the police and accused him of physically and/or sexually abusing some of their six kids. I knew I had to ask her about that, and I knew she'd probably say "no comment." Still, I was really nervous about it. But it went exactly as I had expected and we just went on to talk other stuff: her new book and her bookstore in Minneapolis and the new baby she'd just had with a person whose identity she did not disclose.

One thing she said that was weird was that she wrote a scene in which a character in the new novel, a priest who had appeared in a previous novel, undresses and is revealed to be a woman pretending to be a man. Louise said she did not know until she wrote the scene that was going to happen, so she was as surprised as anyone when it did. That struck me as disingenuous. I would believe it didn't occur to her to have that happen before she started writing, but I didn't think it was possible for her fingers to start typing on their own (or writing longhand, if that's what she does) as she watched the scene unfold like someone in the audience at a movie.

I loved her first three novels and read a couple of others but after a while stopped trying to keep up with them.




 

[Front-Ranger]

Some articles are so well written that I find myself zipping through them even though I'm not interested in the subject. "Dr. Robot" by D. T. Max is such an article.

Sigh. . . . After "Dr. Robot", I was halfway through the Tiktok article when I decided that I don't like my New Yorker Magazine writing the words "algorithm" and "server" so much. Checking the rest of the articles and the cover, methinks I'll have to give the rest of the issue a pass, at least for a day or two. I like my magazines to be analog, thank you very much!

[Front-Ranger]

I've been attending a "Freelance Business Week" conference this week and, while I haven't learned very much, it's been a great refresher. Also, I've had a couple of good ideas for "Shouts and Murmurs" type articles.

Mostly when I read S&M, I think, oh that's kind of blah, I think I could do better. Guess I'm an armchair S&M author. There are at least two ideas I'd like to develop and maybe send to TNY. In my spare time.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I've been attending a "Freelance Business Week" conference this week and, while I haven't learned very much, it's been a great refresher. Also, I've had a couple of good ideas for "Shouts and Murmurs" type articles.

Mostly when I read S&M, I think, oh that's kind of blah, I think I could do better. Guess I'm an armchair S&M author. There are at least two ideas I'd like to develop and maybe send to TNY. In my spare time.

If I were you, I'd be careful using "S&M" as an abbreviation for "Shouts and Murmurs." 

[serious crayons]

Mostly when I read S&M, I think, oh that's kind of blah

I think the same thing. Now and then I see some that are genuinely funny, but many are too over-the-top, more goofy than funny. I have a feeling that the worse ones tend to be by longtime New Yorker writers, either in the S&M space or in general. The possible exception is Jack Handey, who contributes from time to time and seems a little funnier. Do you all remember when SNL had "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey"? I remember one: "I'm scared of clowns. Maybe because I went to the circus once, and a clown killed my dad."

[Jeff Wrangler]

Has anybody read "Value Meal," by Tad Friend (Sept. 30)? It looks to me like it's another one of those articles that's longer by half than it needs to be.

[Front-Ranger]

No, I thought the same thing, although I like his writing so I'll at least start it.