It’s certainly harder to find exciting new writers there, one of the things I most enjoyed when it ran more than one short story per issue. I feel for new or young writers who are trying to make their names. The New Yorker which used to be a place they could do it, but it seems to go more and more for ready-made names.
The New Yorker has been running on fumes for quite a while. They hired WAY too many of the same people (privileged backgrounds, Ivy League educations) to be staff writers during Remnick's 25 years. That pattern has produced a homogenized, listless periodical reflexively praised only by those who don't know any better.
"Running on fumes" is a good way to put it. I have similar feelings about the New York Times Book Review, which I suggested in earlier stories about its recent overexposure of Anne Tyler and why you can't trust its year-best book list (and not just because 80% of the books on the NYTBR list came from Penguin Random House):
Thanks, Vanessa. "Unputdownable" bothers me not just because it's critics' jargon or "reviewese." It's also such a clunky word! I can't figure out why reviewers use it so much.
I picked up a copy at a friend's place (well, my ex's actually) the other day, after years of abstinence. (From the mag, I mean.) It's become the flagship of middle-brow. An embarrassing poem by a prize-festooned poet. Three or more sloggy pieces on 'current events' (tariffs. DEI on campus, for instance) that shed no new light. Even the cartoons seemed flat. Or maybe it's just me.
Oh, you noticed that poetry, eh? I avoided mentioning it because of a hazy memory that, around the time I stopped subscribing, the poetry always seemed to involve Jorie Graham doing something weird with typography, which can't be true and is no doubt unfair to Graham, poetry, and The New Yorker.
But you're not the only one who thinks those "current events" stories can be turgid. My impression is that a lot of the problems with the magazine result from Remnick's background in deep news reporting (rather than poetry or arts criticism or anything with a light touch). I love deep reporting (e.g., Patrick Radden Keefe's opioid stories). But I don't want to read in The New Yorker deep reporting on something already deeply reported by, say, the New York Times unless there's something NEW.
I have a friend who named her daughter Jorie. So I should be careful too. But I never seem to learn. So where to find readable, fairly reliable book reviews? The Guardian maybe. Seriously, where else? Sometimes the Atlantic, but not much coverage. Related question: where to publish if one has more than a book report in mind.
This mirrors how my love for The Atlantic unraveled. Any issue with words from William Langewiesche was a must read. Then those became increasingly rare, until they just stopped coming. I know it's rebounded in recent years, but I still can't bring myself to spring for a subscription.
William Langewiesche was a god to so many! Whatever happened to him? I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it that he's vanished.
The Atlantic is comeback story of the year and tops the list of magazines I'd subscribe to if the price would come down a little. I don't blame magazines for asking readers to pay their fair share, but I miss the days of "blow-in cards" (those cards blown into magazines by machines that let you get a vast discount on a year's subscription) or "bingo cards" (those cards that let you circle a magazine on a list and get the same).
For years I was a faithful New Yorker subscriber. For a person stuck deep in the Midwest, I snobbishly found it ‘elevating’! I read it cover to cover! The essays! The fiction! The cartoons! Even On The Avenue and the Christmas shopping list! Best of all, the ads and the witty column-fillers! I pictured myself a NY flâneuse going to galleries and plays in a Hermes scarf and the perfume of the moment. Then the magazine simply went to pot. The writing deteriorated, the topics were questionable, and the wit died. I gave up when the slang and the F-word became impossible to ignore and the subscription costs skyrocketed. I’m still a snob, but I source it more selectively. Occasionally I run across an old issue and flipping through it is Proustian. O tempora, o mores!
I loved those column fillers, too. Block that metaphor! Now I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of those metaphors that the magazine used to tweak in some of the writing that appears elsewhere in the magazine.
Oh, gosh, yes! Block that metaphor! And those adorable little in-column illustrations. I’d flip back through an entire issue to ferret out the minimal stories they presented through a few lines of drawing or a collection of dots! Those were the days!
I was a subscriber to TNY for many years. It wasn't Esquire or VF, (I miss the monthly issues, but understand the reality of today's media), but for the times that I did subscribe, it was OK. I enjoyed the humor column that Steve Martin wrote on occasion. I still get subscription offers from them and they go right in the shredder. (oh, and Wolfe was overrated)
Esquire is a good comparison, Kent, because that’s another magazine that used to be great but lost it. And Steve Martin could be a treat when he was in top form. Now I’m getting nostalgic even for the glory days of Rolling Stone.
I subscribe to both Esquire and VF. Rolling Stone. Jesus, that's another mag gone down the tube (not to mention the rabbit hole). Newspapers suck, even website traffic stinks. I get Esquire because of Charles P. Pierce's politics blog and the occasionally great profile. Read my blog I posted earlier.
You’re right that some of the reporting can be great, Delia. Those Patrick Radden Keefe pieces were expanded into a wonderful book, “Empire of Pain.” And maybe the outliers like you will keep the magazine alive long enough to improve other aspects, which I’d welcome.
Yes. PRK is amazing. One of the things I like most about The New Yorker is that I often find myself reading something I wouldn't otherwise read. That's rare for me. And why I still value my (gasp) very expensive subscription.
Yes! I heard one top editor at a literary publishing
firm say that even she dislikes the hit parade of big names, because it means that if her stars can get published it’s made it harder for new talent to find its way.
Apart from the quality of that fiction, the magazine has gone more and more for big names that will sell it if put on the cover. It’s all but stopped being an incubator for new talent, which was part of what used to make it exciting.
I agree and, unfortunately, going with established writers just reflects and reinforces the bias problems of main stream publishers. Turning away from new writers doesn't help any population, it just hurts young/new writers of all kinds in favor of the status quo.
Your post reminded me to take my subscription off auto-renewal. I get a discounted subscription of 79.99--educators discount. But man, the issues pile up. Probably better to put it on pause for a while and see if I miss it. Sometimes I find something that makes me remember why I subscribe, but often I skim the TOC and put the copy on the pile with the rest.
Remember when it was the National Geographics that used to pile up and then go to the attic? Your comment makes me wonder if The New Yorker is headed for the same fate, if it’s not there already.
I went through several years of subscribing to The New Yorker out of guilt but I also had a moment where I realized, Nope, can't do this anymore! And canceled. I can't recall now the details of that moment, only that I was done with it. But I do remember that I had begun to feel that the articles were poorly edited - digressive, unfocused, and, as a result, far too long. I can read long form but not when it wanders all over the place. And I also felt generally that the magazine had become very out of touch and self-involved and I could just not relate to its contents anymore. However, I always absolutely loved Joan Acocella's dance reviews and I always read them just for the beauty of her writing even though dance is not something that I understand. Drawing people to your writing despite their lack of familiarity with its subject - THAT is a good writer.
It seems to have become bland to appeal to a wider audience. Do the actually think that a MAGA follower will read it? Do they even read? If one subscribes, can one ask for only the interesting issues? I used to bask in its beauty. No longer.
That's an interesting comment about MAGA readers. I live in a largely red town in the redder-than-red state of Alabama, and you can't find it on magazine racks here. It absence makes me think the stores have given up on selling The New Yorker to a MAGA readership even if the editors haven't.
It's too bland. My rule of thumb is every 4th issue has something to read. Getting it in the mail is starting to feel slightly like punishment to be honest.
It did feel like a punishment when I subscribed. That helped to explain my guilt when I couldn't read it. I always felt I "should" be reading more of it, however unenjoyable.
Read it for years then cancelled because it seemed to me their fiction was getting even more cliquish and cookie-cutter.
It’s certainly harder to find exciting new writers there, one of the things I most enjoyed when it ran more than one short story per issue. I feel for new or young writers who are trying to make their names. The New Yorker which used to be a place they could do it, but it seems to go more and more for ready-made names.
The New Yorker has been running on fumes for quite a while. They hired WAY too many of the same people (privileged backgrounds, Ivy League educations) to be staff writers during Remnick's 25 years. That pattern has produced a homogenized, listless periodical reflexively praised only by those who don't know any better.
"Running on fumes" is a good way to put it. I have similar feelings about the New York Times Book Review, which I suggested in earlier stories about its recent overexposure of Anne Tyler and why you can't trust its year-best book list (and not just because 80% of the books on the NYTBR list came from Penguin Random House):
https://jansplaining.substack.com/p/why-you-cant-trust-years-best-book
Thank you for giving me so many intelligent excuses to adopt. It’s better than saying “I was just in it for the cartoons.”
Ha. It might be an excuse, but it’s better than “I only read Playboy for the fiction” :).
Even I know not to write unputdownable in a blurb - or anything else. 😣
Thanks, Vanessa. "Unputdownable" bothers me not just because it's critics' jargon or "reviewese." It's also such a clunky word! I can't figure out why reviewers use it so much.
Its clunkiness may have been part of its charm until overused to the point of triteness. It sounds emphatic.
I picked up a copy at a friend's place (well, my ex's actually) the other day, after years of abstinence. (From the mag, I mean.) It's become the flagship of middle-brow. An embarrassing poem by a prize-festooned poet. Three or more sloggy pieces on 'current events' (tariffs. DEI on campus, for instance) that shed no new light. Even the cartoons seemed flat. Or maybe it's just me.
Oh, you noticed that poetry, eh? I avoided mentioning it because of a hazy memory that, around the time I stopped subscribing, the poetry always seemed to involve Jorie Graham doing something weird with typography, which can't be true and is no doubt unfair to Graham, poetry, and The New Yorker.
But you're not the only one who thinks those "current events" stories can be turgid. My impression is that a lot of the problems with the magazine result from Remnick's background in deep news reporting (rather than poetry or arts criticism or anything with a light touch). I love deep reporting (e.g., Patrick Radden Keefe's opioid stories). But I don't want to read in The New Yorker deep reporting on something already deeply reported by, say, the New York Times unless there's something NEW.
I have a friend who named her daughter Jorie. So I should be careful too. But I never seem to learn. So where to find readable, fairly reliable book reviews? The Guardian maybe. Seriously, where else? Sometimes the Atlantic, but not much coverage. Related question: where to publish if one has more than a book report in mind.
This mirrors how my love for The Atlantic unraveled. Any issue with words from William Langewiesche was a must read. Then those became increasingly rare, until they just stopped coming. I know it's rebounded in recent years, but I still can't bring myself to spring for a subscription.
William Langewiesche was a god to so many! Whatever happened to him? I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it that he's vanished.
The Atlantic is comeback story of the year and tops the list of magazines I'd subscribe to if the price would come down a little. I don't blame magazines for asking readers to pay their fair share, but I miss the days of "blow-in cards" (those cards blown into magazines by machines that let you get a vast discount on a year's subscription) or "bingo cards" (those cards that let you circle a magazine on a list and get the same).
For years I was a faithful New Yorker subscriber. For a person stuck deep in the Midwest, I snobbishly found it ‘elevating’! I read it cover to cover! The essays! The fiction! The cartoons! Even On The Avenue and the Christmas shopping list! Best of all, the ads and the witty column-fillers! I pictured myself a NY flâneuse going to galleries and plays in a Hermes scarf and the perfume of the moment. Then the magazine simply went to pot. The writing deteriorated, the topics were questionable, and the wit died. I gave up when the slang and the F-word became impossible to ignore and the subscription costs skyrocketed. I’m still a snob, but I source it more selectively. Occasionally I run across an old issue and flipping through it is Proustian. O tempora, o mores!
I loved those column fillers, too. Block that metaphor! Now I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of those metaphors that the magazine used to tweak in some of the writing that appears elsewhere in the magazine.
Oh, gosh, yes! Block that metaphor! And those adorable little in-column illustrations. I’d flip back through an entire issue to ferret out the minimal stories they presented through a few lines of drawing or a collection of dots! Those were the days!
I was a subscriber to TNY for many years. It wasn't Esquire or VF, (I miss the monthly issues, but understand the reality of today's media), but for the times that I did subscribe, it was OK. I enjoyed the humor column that Steve Martin wrote on occasion. I still get subscription offers from them and they go right in the shredder. (oh, and Wolfe was overrated)
Esquire is a good comparison, Kent, because that’s another magazine that used to be great but lost it. And Steve Martin could be a treat when he was in top form. Now I’m getting nostalgic even for the glory days of Rolling Stone.
I subscribe to both Esquire and VF. Rolling Stone. Jesus, that's another mag gone down the tube (not to mention the rabbit hole). Newspapers suck, even website traffic stinks. I get Esquire because of Charles P. Pierce's politics blog and the occasionally great profile. Read my blog I posted earlier.
I still love it. It's the only place you see quality long-form reporting. Call me an outlier!
You’re right that some of the reporting can be great, Delia. Those Patrick Radden Keefe pieces were expanded into a wonderful book, “Empire of Pain.” And maybe the outliers like you will keep the magazine alive long enough to improve other aspects, which I’d welcome.
Yes. PRK is amazing. One of the things I like most about The New Yorker is that I often find myself reading something I wouldn't otherwise read. That's rare for me. And why I still value my (gasp) very expensive subscription.
The fiction pieces are remarkably awful with very few exceptions.
Yes! I heard one top editor at a literary publishing
firm say that even she dislikes the hit parade of big names, because it means that if her stars can get published it’s made it harder for new talent to find its way.
Apart from the quality of that fiction, the magazine has gone more and more for big names that will sell it if put on the cover. It’s all but stopped being an incubator for new talent, which was part of what used to make it exciting.
I agree and, unfortunately, going with established writers just reflects and reinforces the bias problems of main stream publishers. Turning away from new writers doesn't help any population, it just hurts young/new writers of all kinds in favor of the status quo.
Your post reminded me to take my subscription off auto-renewal. I get a discounted subscription of 79.99--educators discount. But man, the issues pile up. Probably better to put it on pause for a while and see if I miss it. Sometimes I find something that makes me remember why I subscribe, but often I skim the TOC and put the copy on the pile with the rest.
Remember when it was the National Geographics that used to pile up and then go to the attic? Your comment makes me wonder if The New Yorker is headed for the same fate, if it’s not there already.
I wonder. It's also interesting that The New Yorker doesn't win awards for the writing. Didn't know that.
I went through several years of subscribing to The New Yorker out of guilt but I also had a moment where I realized, Nope, can't do this anymore! And canceled. I can't recall now the details of that moment, only that I was done with it. But I do remember that I had begun to feel that the articles were poorly edited - digressive, unfocused, and, as a result, far too long. I can read long form but not when it wanders all over the place. And I also felt generally that the magazine had become very out of touch and self-involved and I could just not relate to its contents anymore. However, I always absolutely loved Joan Acocella's dance reviews and I always read them just for the beauty of her writing even though dance is not something that I understand. Drawing people to your writing despite their lack of familiarity with its subject - THAT is a good writer.
It seems to have become bland to appeal to a wider audience. Do the actually think that a MAGA follower will read it? Do they even read? If one subscribes, can one ask for only the interesting issues? I used to bask in its beauty. No longer.
That's an interesting comment about MAGA readers. I live in a largely red town in the redder-than-red state of Alabama, and you can't find it on magazine racks here. It absence makes me think the stores have given up on selling The New Yorker to a MAGA readership even if the editors haven't.
It's too bland. My rule of thumb is every 4th issue has something to read. Getting it in the mail is starting to feel slightly like punishment to be honest.
It did feel like a punishment when I subscribed. That helped to explain my guilt when I couldn't read it. I always felt I "should" be reading more of it, however unenjoyable.
I used to love the NY. Too ideological now.
I used to love it, too. And you see that ideology in book reviews, too. It seems to review books within an ever-narrower range.