Perhaps it becomes difficult to continue to be a cultural gatekeeper and maintain a distinctive edge when a medium you popularize is adopted by other publications? There are several recent examples of the NYer's exceptionality. Aviv's profile of Munro was a piece the few other venues could publish. A major investigative piece about the Letby investigation triggered controversy in the UK. It also was one of the first to publish an excerpt from this year's Booker winner. I disagree with Kahn that the NYer is irrelevant. In some ways it is a victim of its own success and in others it is nearly impossible to continue to standout when publication becomes democratized. I am a regular reader of the NYer because of its distinctiveness and blend of journalism, fiction, poetry, humor and cultural that remain distinct.
I love Persuasion but this is not the kind of stance that works. The site should stick to its steady center-left politics and not look-at-me culture swipes. The New Yorker is better than fine. Every issue there’s something very worth reading, from long form essays to a good profile to its poetry. Sure, like any other mag, some things misfire. But I trust Remnick and his editors to bring us the idiosyncratic, the elegant, the comic, the elegiac, the blissful, and the unexpected.
What a mean-spirited article. I can't figure out if it is meant as critique or a lament, but it feels like an effort to make the writer feel superior to whatever appears in The New Yorker. That publication has existed an order of magnitude (and maybe two orders) longer than Persuasion. I am a loyal reader of this newsletter, so I say this with all gratitude for what I have found here: Don't try to elevate this publication by denigrating others. There is so much good here to be found, don't distract from that.
This post is accurate in many ways. But hasn't a reactionary stance also formed in Substack? The adoption of a rebel pose whenever a mainstream figure arrives? I understand the motivation. When I first arrived here, many Substackers had lost their traditional writing jobs in mainstream organizations. And there were supposedly Nazis everywhere (and plenty of classical liiberals who were wrongly treated as if they were right wing MAGA figures). Substack was filled with dozens of heterodox writers. Dozens of dozens. So I also have a reflexive response when big name fiction writers arrive here...it means that Substack is mainstream, with all the good and bad that entails.
A bit harsh perhaps. It's fine. Still a good magazine but it's particular style and focus is singularly I'll suited to an era of moral, cultural and structural decay.
Give it a few decades and it'll be right back on top.
Oh, The New Yorker isn't dead to me. I own hundreds of bound and unbound copies from the thirties, forties, fifties and sixties, so many that I can never read them all. They are cheap on eBay. I'm sure they will soon be available in a digital medium.
I used to be an avid reader of The New Yorker, but it became repetitive and rarely was I getting something new and substantive, so I terminated my subscription a number of years ago.
What we read defines us in many ways. I'm pleased that the New Yorker remains in my portfolio. I don't read everything in every issue, every week, but I am continually engaged by constant meaningful, well written and edited stories.
Perhaps it becomes difficult to continue to be a cultural gatekeeper and maintain a distinctive edge when a medium you popularize is adopted by other publications? There are several recent examples of the NYer's exceptionality. Aviv's profile of Munro was a piece the few other venues could publish. A major investigative piece about the Letby investigation triggered controversy in the UK. It also was one of the first to publish an excerpt from this year's Booker winner. I disagree with Kahn that the NYer is irrelevant. In some ways it is a victim of its own success and in others it is nearly impossible to continue to standout when publication becomes democratized. I am a regular reader of the NYer because of its distinctiveness and blend of journalism, fiction, poetry, humor and cultural that remain distinct.
I love Persuasion but this is not the kind of stance that works. The site should stick to its steady center-left politics and not look-at-me culture swipes. The New Yorker is better than fine. Every issue there’s something very worth reading, from long form essays to a good profile to its poetry. Sure, like any other mag, some things misfire. But I trust Remnick and his editors to bring us the idiosyncratic, the elegant, the comic, the elegiac, the blissful, and the unexpected.
"this is not the kind of stance that works"
What does this mean? I'm misinterpreting it I think
Well written critique, but I guess The New Yorker really has become irrelevant as nobody else has commented!
What a mean-spirited article. I can't figure out if it is meant as critique or a lament, but it feels like an effort to make the writer feel superior to whatever appears in The New Yorker. That publication has existed an order of magnitude (and maybe two orders) longer than Persuasion. I am a loyal reader of this newsletter, so I say this with all gratitude for what I have found here: Don't try to elevate this publication by denigrating others. There is so much good here to be found, don't distract from that.
This post is accurate in many ways. But hasn't a reactionary stance also formed in Substack? The adoption of a rebel pose whenever a mainstream figure arrives? I understand the motivation. When I first arrived here, many Substackers had lost their traditional writing jobs in mainstream organizations. And there were supposedly Nazis everywhere (and plenty of classical liiberals who were wrongly treated as if they were right wing MAGA figures). Substack was filled with dozens of heterodox writers. Dozens of dozens. So I also have a reflexive response when big name fiction writers arrive here...it means that Substack is mainstream, with all the good and bad that entails.
David Remnick and co. should take this piece to heart, but they won't.
This is a double negative. Don't be so sure.
A bit harsh perhaps. It's fine. Still a good magazine but it's particular style and focus is singularly I'll suited to an era of moral, cultural and structural decay.
Give it a few decades and it'll be right back on top.
Oh, The New Yorker isn't dead to me. I own hundreds of bound and unbound copies from the thirties, forties, fifties and sixties, so many that I can never read them all. They are cheap on eBay. I'm sure they will soon be available in a digital medium.
I used to be an avid reader of The New Yorker, but it became repetitive and rarely was I getting something new and substantive, so I terminated my subscription a number of years ago.
What we read defines us in many ways. I'm pleased that the New Yorker remains in my portfolio. I don't read everything in every issue, every week, but I am continually engaged by constant meaningful, well written and edited stories.
love the "oh and fuck the New Yorker in particular" energy