the new yorker

posts about #thenewyorker more →
New Yorker Cartoons Now on XBox, For Some Reason
The New Yorker, by the Numbers
Eleven Things You Could Do Instead of Reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Book about Not Eating Meat
New Guinea Tribesmen Would Like to Bankrupt The New Yorker
Flacks Love This Businessweek Deal
We Continue to Wait for the Story that Explains Nikki Finke
Nikki Finke Hits The New Yorker: "I Bitchslapped David Remnick"
The New Yorker's Dark Anti-Brazil Conspiracy Uncovered
Your Guide to the New Yorker Festival
New Yorker Gets Great Hip Hop Story Somehow

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

A Message To Rudy
11/19/09

In reply to New Yorker Cartoons Now on XBox, For Some Reason
It's called BWC technology: Because We Can. It's the same technology used to make those Charles Schwab commercials that are computer rotoscopes of people talking about their investments so detailed that they might as well used the acutal footage of the real people they used to base the computer graphics on.
Reply

A Message To Rudy was starred

Deric
11/19/09

In reply to New Yorker Cartoons Now on XBox, For Some Reason

Reply

Deric was starred Deric was unstarred

Deric
11/19/09

@Deric: FAILBOT for me! Trust me, there's a not so witty caption at the bottom of this cartoon.
Reply

Deric was starred Deric was unstarred

Rozelle’s Bagman
11/19/09

@Deric: Christ, what an asshole.
Reply

Rozelle’s Bagman was starred

Banjo-Sea Kitten
11/19/09

In reply to New Yorker Cartoons Now on XBox, For Some Reason
My god. No. I blame Woody Allen having children.
Reply

Banjo-Sea Kitten was starred Banjo-Sea Kitten was unstarred

JessickerFletcher
11/19/09

@Banjo-Sea Kitten: ... and not marrying all of them.

HEY - OH!

(It's a tired joke of which I do not tire)
Reply

Banjo-Sea Kitten promoted this comment JessickerFletcher was starred

Banjo-Sea Kitten
11/19/09

@JessickerFletcher: grudgingly promoted!
Reply

Banjo-Sea Kitten was starred Banjo-Sea Kitten was unstarred

LoveHandles
11/11/09

In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
Honestly, these numbers seem rather pedestrian, given the content. #thenewyorker
Reply

LoveHandles was starred LoveHandles was unstarred

snugbug
11/11/09

@LoveHandles: True. It's interesting that regular readers seldom realize the enormous effort that goes into producing complex articles like those in the New Yorker that flow, both on a logical and literal level, like liquid butter. The flow of the printed word is very different from the flow of the spoken word. Wordsmithing is way more difficult an art that most of us are aware of--but that's the point that the New Yorker illustrates so beautifully. You just read, and you're never aware of how much work it went into making writing come across so effortless on the page. #thenewyorker
Reply

snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred

Monte Wooley
11/11/09

In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
Bloated staff, unreadable magazine. No wonder Si loves it. So Proustian. A remembrance of things past. Tiny mummies live! #thenewyorker
Reply

Monte Wooley was starred Monte Wooley was unstarred

lionel-mandrake
11/11/09

@Monte Wooley: Unreadable? You're not saying very much about yourself, are you? #thenewyorker
Reply

lionel-mandrake was starred lionel-mandrake was unstarred

Monte Wooley
11/13/09

@lionel-mandrake: what would you like to know? That I enjoy prose with blood in its veins? I like surprising story choices, not the utterly predictable kind? Yes, dear Mandrake, unreadable, to me, which obviously makes me a heathen to you. So be it. #thenewyorker
Reply

Monte Wooley was starred Monte Wooley was unstarred

FormerEnglishMajor
11/11/09

In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
What is the ratio of writers to editors at other magazines? Is 2:1 a lot or the industry norm? (unless critics are considered writers as well, in which case it's 2.5 to 1).

And could someone, ANYONE, please explain to a non-journo what the difference is between a "copy staff" and an "editorial assistant"? #thenewyorker
Reply

FormerEnglishMajor was starred

Guggenheimlich
11/11/09

@FormerEnglishMajor: Editorial assistants are half-grunt work editors, half-personal assistants. Copy staff does way more fact-checking and style-proofing. Editorial assistants get the Plexiglass-reflected glory of their overlord; the copy staff gets to not live in terror of serving cold coffee. And if they have seven years of experience and a master's, slightly more than minimum wage. #thenewyorker
Reply

snugbug promoted this comment Guggenheimlich was starred Guggenheimlich was unstarred

snugbug
11/11/09

@FormerEnglishMajor: "Editorial assistant" is the entry-level staff position at magazines. You often start as an intern, and if hired, join in as editorial assistant. You occasionally get to do some fluffy, blurby-type writing that runs in print, but your job is to assist more senior writers with research, fact-checking, etc. No smart person ever spends more than a year as an editorial assistant--it's a threshold position by definition. You either get promoted out of it or drop out.

Copy staff means copy editors. Their main responsibility is to ensure that the flow of the printed word is both grammatically correct and in accordance with the conventions of journalism.

They review copy for grammatical accuracy, spelling, flag things such as "widows," faulty word breaks, etc. etc. Occasionally they have some last-minute input in fact-checking, but in Magazineland, the bulk of fact-checking is usually done by the time copy gets to a copy editor. It's a pretty technical job, complex yet not creative, but very essential. It's a career-type job as opposed to a mere station to something else.

Does this help? #thenewyorker
Reply

snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred

snugbug
11/11/09

@Guggenheimlich: I disagree, based on my experience. Editorial assistants don't ever do any sort of editing work, ever--be it line-editing of copy-editing. They seldom write, for that matter. And I think you're confusing editorial assistants with personal assistants to the editor in chief. The latter are glorified secretaries.
Reply

Edited by snugbug at 11/11/09 1:10 PM snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred

FormerEnglishMajor
11/11/09

@snugbug: Hugely. So that would mean the E.A.'s don't get paid much (one step above intern?) while the copy editors would - could they try to replace the latter with the former to cut costs or is that above an EA's pay grade...?

Big help. If I could heart you again, I would.

When you are not in publishing, the titles/duties are a complete mystery as to hierarchy, job content, etc. #thenewyorker
Reply

FormerEnglishMajor was starred

pssshwhatever
11/11/09

@FormerEnglishMajor: The EAs get paid next to nothing, copy staff gets paid...next to next to nothing. A lot of publications have drastically reduced copy staff in order to cut costs already, but I don't think the two jobs will be melded together - most EAs wouldn't be effective at it, it's not an easy task and it takes some real experience to be a good copy editor. Like a previous poster pointed out, EAs are transient by definition and they either move up or move on.

I have some friends that work at small publications that now have no copy staff and that farm out their editing to a separate service, but I'm not sure how common that is at bigger publications. I work for a website, and they expect me to copy edit my own stuff. Which, honestly, is next to impossible to do in any effective way. Having fresh eyes on a piece of writing is a big help. But as HamNo would say, this is how we live now: with tired eyes and grammatical errors. #thenewyorker
Reply

pssshwhatever was starred pssshwhatever was unstarred

Guggenheimlich
11/11/09

@snugbug: I bow to your wisdom. I should have disclaimed that these were wild guesses from someone barely with a foot in Bookland. So, then, what DO editorial assistants at magazines do? Just go to meetings and read submissions? #thenewyorker
Reply

Guggenheimlich was starred Guggenheimlich was unstarred

snugbug
11/12/09

@Guggenheimlich: In the classic pyramid scheme of a magazine masthead, EAs are pretty much gophers. The magazine world's equivalent of PAs (production assistants) in film and advertising. You do whatever needs to get done--from rounding up items for a photo shoot to harassing PR for shopping credits to fact-checking, etc. They do NOT go on coffee runs, though, and in that sense, differ from interns. I suppose you can say EAs are little balls of coiled promise, whose latent potential is recognized on the condition that they put in some unglamorous grunt work before they are afforded the privilege to write or edit things of any consequence. #thenewyorker
Reply

snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred

naugahydeinplainsight
11/11/09

In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
Six with "makeup" in their titles but seven with "web," plus a blogs editor and a multimedia producer. Go, go Eustace! #thenewyorker
Reply

Baroness
11/11/09

In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
They need a lot of makeup- have you seen those ghastly pale lit-nillas? #thenewyorker
Reply

Baroness was starred Baroness was unstarred

manchops
11/11/09

In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
wow, the weird part is I know someone who freelances there three days a week as a researcher and she's not even on that masthead!
I do worry about the timeliness of publishing this thing right now though. I worry for everyone in magazine's jobs. #thenewyorker
Reply

manchops was starred manchops was unstarred

If_I_Had_a_Poodle
11/11/09

@manchops: Jobs? At magazines? #thenewyorker
Reply

If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred

Tremonius
11/11/09

@If_I_Had_a_Poodle: There used to be magazines. It's hard to imagine how it was then.

Fitzgerald in The Saturday Evening Post; Hemingway in True, the Man's Magazine; Isaac Asimov writing for Playboy; Carl Sagan a regular in Parade. Everybody with gravitas back then traded it in for the huge numbers reached by the pop press.

Now both gravitas and numbers are gone. Isn't there a Greek tragedy on this feature? #thenewyorker
Reply

Tremonius was starred Tremonius was unstarred

lionel-mandrake
11/11/09

@Tremonius: There still are jobs at magazines, just not at Nast or Hachette. #thenewyorker
Reply

lionel-mandrake was starred lionel-mandrake was unstarred

Dirty_Terry
11/11/09

@lionel-mandrake: You're right. There are jobs...WORKING FOR THE SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE. #thenewyorker
Reply

Tremonius promoted this comment Dirty_Terry was starred Dirty_Terry was unstarred

Tremonius
11/11/09

@Dirty_Terry: I see the comically-named "Freedom" is looking for experienced dirt-diggers in Tampa. #thenewyorker
Reply

Tremonius was starred Tremonius was unstarred

lionel-mandrake
11/11/09

@Dirty_Terry: Or, apparently Hearst, with its $1B war chest. #thenewyorker
Reply

lionel-mandrake was starred lionel-mandrake was unstarred

futuremrsrickankiel
11/09/09

In reply to Eleven Things You Could Do Instead of Reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Book about Not Eating Meat
Oh, nuts. Am I too late to call this a PIE OF SALVATION? Because it is. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

carbonadam
11/08/09

In reply to Eleven Things You Could Do Instead of Reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Book about Not Eating Meat
Any vegetarian who thinks animal life is more sacred than plant life is sorely mistaken. All life is sacred and none from the lowly ameba, to humans, to trees, vegetables, nuts, goats, dogs, cows, whales, roaches and rats is any more important than the other. This "animals are more sacred" than plants argument is nonsense and is rooted in human hubris that is about as arrogant and single minded as it can get. vegetarians can be annoying and self righteous and at the end of the day they still have to place organic matter into their maws that was once alive, as do we all, in order to say alive. I say let the annoying ones who think they have it all figured out grind up rocks into dust and eat that instead of organic plant and animal life. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

TheBusinessGuy promoted this comment carbonadam was starred carbonadam was unstarred

Lux Alptraum
11/08/09

In reply to Eleven Things You Could Do Instead of Reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Book about Not Eating Meat
I hated Foer's NY Times piece (based on his book), and I, for the record, have been a vegetarian for almost two decades (which, god, makes me feel really fucking old).

Anyhoo: I don't eat meat because a) I'm opposed to factory farming, b) if all Americans reduced their meat consumption by even a little bit, it would do wonders for the environment--so if I reduce my meat consumption by 100%, that at least offsets some of the more aggressive meat eaters out there, and c) I just don't really like the taste of meat and don't miss it.

When I do consume dairy and eggs, I do my best to consume products from local, family farms--obviously not something I can guarantee when eating out, but a practice I keep in my home.

What bothered me so much about the Times piece was that Foer seemed so sanctimonious in his argument: while berating those who choose to eat meat, he simultaneously admitted that 1) he thinks a vegetarian lifestyle is culinarily inferior to one including meat (see point c) and 2) that family farms made many of his points about factory farming null (but, you know, they're just too hard to find--apparently the Park Slope Food Co-Op is impossible for a Park Slope resident to access!)--oh, and he also completely ignored the questions of eating dairy and eggs, wearing leather, animal testing, and the many, many other instances of animal cruelty that exist in our culture.

So I guess I'm trying to say: vegetarians, we aren't all bad (and we are making choices that help the environment!). But that Safran Foer dude...he's a prick. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

Lux Alptraum was starred Lux Alptraum was unstarred

Foster Kamer
11/08/09

@Lux Alptraum: Yes, thank you, exactly. You have the maturity to say what my thirteen year-old instincts set aside in favor of mischief. But hopefully someone took this sentiment from the post. The most egregious notion about all of this is that change starts with BoBo Brooklyn writers like Foer, and his readers. Wrong, and ignorant. It starts with changes in federal policy, and it starts with protecting those for whom reducing our intake of factory farmed products will present the most issues to: lower-income families.
Reply

Edited by Foster Kamer at 11/08/09 3:22 PM Foster Kamer was starred Foster Kamer was unstarred

Orgasmic-Chemist
11/08/09

@Foster Kamer: You think that high-profile writers don't help spark the public interest, which can lead to changes in federal policy?

Maybe you think Foer is a dick, but his novel has gotten people talking and its brought the discussion to the news papers and front pages of blogs.

Its cute to think that the federal government will just up and change policies related to big corporations, but it isn't realistic.

I haven't read Foer's book (sounds like you haven't either), but I did read your post and its pretty pathetic. Way to demean an important issue, because you think your hip readers will enjoy bashing on an erudite author. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

Foster Kamer promoted this comment Orgasmic-Chemist was starred Orgasmic-Chemist was unstarred

Foster Kamer
11/08/09

@Orgasmic-Chemist: Franklin? Is that you?

Foer's about as high-profile as the guy who wrote Everything is Illuminated can get. As in, the New York Times really! loves! his shit! The rest of reading America still remembers him as the guy who wrote Everything is Illuminated and the 9/11 picture book.

Also, O hai, have you been reading the news lately?

Its cute to think that the federal government will just up and change policies related to big corporations, but it isn't realistic.

Auto industry. Banking industry. Health care industry. What's not realistic is expecting the people reading this book to do anything other than adjust the height of their soapbox. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

Foster Kamer was starred Foster Kamer was unstarred

Mike Byhoff
11/08/09

@Orgasmic-Chemist: Do you thing Foer was purposefully being a dick just to get a dialogue going?

The Omnivore's Pariah is more like it. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

Mike Byhoff was starred Mike Byhoff was unstarred

Orgasmic-Chemist
11/09/09

@Mike Byhoff: yes. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

Orgasmic-Chemist was starred Orgasmic-Chemist was unstarred

Orgasmic-Chemist
11/09/09

@Foster Kamer: Oh ok, so we should just follow your snarky advice to federal reform then.

Step 1, follow your points from 1-9.

Step 2, wait for the problem to literally implode upon itself to the point that all the cows die of diseases and 1/4 of the population dies.

Step 3, receive federal reform in the style of the auto industry (had to literally go belly up), Banks (Cause a global financial meltdown. Also, since you apparently have read the news lately, what MEANINGFUL reform has taken place??), and Healthcare (a top of debate for almost 100 years for an industry that has no possible economic future for our country and bankrupts more people than the recent financial collapse).

Step 4, (see your step 11) #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

Orgasmic-Chemist was starred Orgasmic-Chemist was unstarred

jeetjet
11/08/09

In reply to Eleven Things You Could Do Instead of Reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Book about Not Eating Meat
I ate at Franny's in Brooklyn yesterday. Asked the waiter if "shade-grown" coffee means that the day laborers only have to pick the beans when it's cool and overcast so they don't break a sweat. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

The Real JR approved this comment jeetjet was starred jeetjet was unstarred

raincoaster
11/08/09

In reply to Eleven Things You Could Do Instead of Reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Book about Not Eating Meat
I used to work at Greenpeace and I took great joy in yelling at the vegans as they went on their cigarette breaks, "CIGARETTES ARE TESTED ON ANIMALS!!!"

Also, I would give the fish eye to the vegans who complained their dogs and cats were doing poorly after being switched to a vegan diet. I was, like, "why'd you get a carnivore for a pet, dumbass, I mean Bro?"

I was, of course, universally beloved there. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

raincoaster was starred raincoaster was unstarred

krudd
11/07/09

In reply to Eleven Things You Could Do Instead of Reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Book about Not Eating Meat
Am I self-hating vegetarian because I laughed at this and love Anthony Bourdain? #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

snugbug promoted this comment krudd was starred krudd was unstarred

snugbug
11/08/09

@krudd: No. You're a person with a sense of humor--a precious asset in any circumstance. #jonathansafranfoer
Reply

snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment