I'm a sucker for a good debunking, especially of sort of pop-psychology "thought leaders." It says some pretty bad things about the field, the way structural incentives are set up for splashy findings and I'm not sure how you get around that. Sort of a depressing counterpoint that I keep seeing ads for the TV show based on Bialy when I watch sports. I was so interested in that one I read it on my phone last weekend when it showed up in the App, much to my kids' dismay (they're learning just how long New Yorker pieces tend to run).
Cabin Fever, ADF were both good and I'm glad they got the audio treatment because I wouldn't have read the ADF piece otherwise (I feel like I already get a solid taste from 5-4 Pod), but there was some good insight and it was good to get this Dolores Umbridge type up close and personal. ....I need to read the talk of the town and criticism pieces you mentioned.
The fact that you're posting this from California makes me think of those old Pace Picante ads where the cowboys sitting around the campfire would incredulously say "New York City?!"
I also enjoyed the details about the burning newspaper in the Chicago Fire piece but the rest of the article seemed pretty well-worn.
Kirkpatrick's feature on the Alliance Defending Freedom didn't do much for me. I imagined what the beats of this story were going to be from the headline and unfortunately that ended up being the case.
My favorite this week was Cabin Fever. Great example of an interesting but, to me at least, under the radar topic. I too spent the first half of the piece wondering when the inevitable zoom out would happen. That part was perhaps a little less interesting but still necessary for a topic like this.
I haven't paid enough attention to Ruscha's later works to determine if I agree with Arn's thesis or not. It does seem a little farfetched that Ruscha's big problem is that there isn't a monoculture for him to respond to anymore. But still happy to have strong arguments about art or "arts" more broadly in the magazine.
Ya know, I don’t disagree with your notes. (Possibly I just didn’t know enough about the Chi fire to find it worn.) This was a pretty strong issue and the favorites are separated by degrees.
Relatedly: pretty funny that the MLS team is named the Chicago Fire. I guess there's also the San Jose Quakes. The Colorado Rapids out here aren't as life threatening but well, interesting to see MLS lean into natural disasters/life-threatening phenomena.
I really appreciated the Kirkpatrick piece, but, hey, I’m a lawyer. But was that lame graphic really the best they could do? I am interested in the artwork the New Yorker presents with its articles, and in general, they do a good job, and sometimes a great job. But not this time. I thought the “Big Little Lies” piece needed an editor, and I know I’ve made that same comment about other articles, but, hey, isn’t this the legendary home of professional and thoughtful editing?
I didn't mind that spot-art, the visual pun is probably too obvious but it's still striking. And I appreciated the sprawl of the Lewis-Kraus; after all, the magazine is one of the few places that will still publish super-long reads, and in this case I thought the story merited it.
This issue was a banger!
I'm a sucker for a good debunking, especially of sort of pop-psychology "thought leaders." It says some pretty bad things about the field, the way structural incentives are set up for splashy findings and I'm not sure how you get around that. Sort of a depressing counterpoint that I keep seeing ads for the TV show based on Bialy when I watch sports. I was so interested in that one I read it on my phone last weekend when it showed up in the App, much to my kids' dismay (they're learning just how long New Yorker pieces tend to run).
Cabin Fever, ADF were both good and I'm glad they got the audio treatment because I wouldn't have read the ADF piece otherwise (I feel like I already get a solid taste from 5-4 Pod), but there was some good insight and it was good to get this Dolores Umbridge type up close and personal. ....I need to read the talk of the town and criticism pieces you mentioned.
The fact that you're posting this from California makes me think of those old Pace Picante ads where the cowboys sitting around the campfire would incredulously say "New York City?!"
I also enjoyed the details about the burning newspaper in the Chicago Fire piece but the rest of the article seemed pretty well-worn.
Kirkpatrick's feature on the Alliance Defending Freedom didn't do much for me. I imagined what the beats of this story were going to be from the headline and unfortunately that ended up being the case.
My favorite this week was Cabin Fever. Great example of an interesting but, to me at least, under the radar topic. I too spent the first half of the piece wondering when the inevitable zoom out would happen. That part was perhaps a little less interesting but still necessary for a topic like this.
I haven't paid enough attention to Ruscha's later works to determine if I agree with Arn's thesis or not. It does seem a little farfetched that Ruscha's big problem is that there isn't a monoculture for him to respond to anymore. But still happy to have strong arguments about art or "arts" more broadly in the magazine.
Ya know, I don’t disagree with your notes. (Possibly I just didn’t know enough about the Chi fire to find it worn.) This was a pretty strong issue and the favorites are separated by degrees.
Eh maybe I'm being too hard on the Chicago piece. It at least is probably going to get me to read the book under review.
Relatedly: pretty funny that the MLS team is named the Chicago Fire. I guess there's also the San Jose Quakes. The Colorado Rapids out here aren't as life threatening but well, interesting to see MLS lean into natural disasters/life-threatening phenomena.
I really appreciated the Kirkpatrick piece, but, hey, I’m a lawyer. But was that lame graphic really the best they could do? I am interested in the artwork the New Yorker presents with its articles, and in general, they do a good job, and sometimes a great job. But not this time. I thought the “Big Little Lies” piece needed an editor, and I know I’ve made that same comment about other articles, but, hey, isn’t this the legendary home of professional and thoughtful editing?
I didn't mind that spot-art, the visual pun is probably too obvious but it's still striking. And I appreciated the sprawl of the Lewis-Kraus; after all, the magazine is one of the few places that will still publish super-long reads, and in this case I thought the story merited it.