What types of people are reading this magazine? A good friend of mine wrote a piece about attending events at the 92nd street YMCA that had a great line about how one couldn’t avoid The New Yorker in certain areas of Manhattan, and I agree, but I also think the magazine’s influence stretches to a more youthful crowd than one might expect. During rainy Brooklyn afternoons, I have noticed my favorite yuppie gentrifiers reading the magazine at coffee houses, and several evenings, I walk will walk into a small, niche Williamsburg restaurant and find a young woman waiting for her meal alone at the bar, using the magazine to avoid catching eyes with horny pick-up patrons such as myself.
Furthermore, several of my friends and acquaintances under thirty, most with no interest in magazine publishing or journalism as a profession, read the magazine regularly. (Actually, my friends over thirty and under fifty seem to be the people with no interest in the magazine. Now that I think about it, those friends by and large never seem to be reading anything – too busy working real careers, listening to their pregnant wives, drinking away the work week, and preparing to enjoy their life sentences as parents, I presume. Doesn’t stop them from being experts on everything though. I guess they get their knowledge from television and cyberspace.) The magazine felt even more ageless when I attended a recent college graduation ceremony and spoke with the younger sister of a college friend. Talking to fresh alum and her mother, they both told me they read The New Yorker front to back every week, with the exception of a small section towards the back of the magazine called Fiction. This amazed me, because the daughter is an aspiring fiction writer like me, but she said the fiction in the magazine doesn’t interest her. She tries to read it, but gets bored or lost by the first few paragraphs. The mother seemed nonchalant in her dismissal of the section and didn’t bother to explain. Both of their responses to The New Yorker’s fiction shocked me, not from surprise, but from the realization of just how many people I had heard complain about the fiction in The New Yorker.
Many of my friends, like me, are fiction writers, and our relationship to the fiction section of The New Yorker is more complicated. While, many rant and complain about its fiction, claiming the editors require rigorous re-drafting of stories, or that all the fiction has a certain style and the magazine doesn’t allow writers that challenge this aesthetic, (I mostly think their distaste for the fiction stems from knocking on the magazine’s door and never being granted entrance), none of us can deny the great writers who have come through those mid-town doors. Some of the greatest fiction writers in America’s literary history, like Ann Beattie, John Cheever, Phillip Roth, and Donald Barthelme, published their stories in the magazine, and its influence has help make the career of current literary success stories Junot Diaz and Jhumpa Lahiri. Despite any grievance with the magazine, most of us writers keep an eye on who it taps; because we know publication in The New Yorker has the possibility to create what we desire more than anything: the widest audience possible.
That said, I really believe many of the magazine’s readers, disinterested in writing themselves, don’t give a flying fuck about the fiction section. Odd, too, since publication in the magazine can almost ensure excitement about the arrival of a writer’s book; it’s like fiction readers and bookstores and the literary world know to pay more attention to a book if the writer has previously been published in The New Yorker, while ignoring the work when it is actually in the magazine. Well, Mr. New Yorker, I plan to knock off your top hat, give you some green colored contacts to replace those Benjamin Franklin bifocals, cut your hair, and force you to wear t-shirts with messages like Stop Snitching, and Fcuk You!
Jokes aside, the goal of this blog will be to take apart the short stories published in that magazine, not to tear them down, but to see how they work, and to talk about their themes and emotions. I often love The New Yorker’s short stories, and the ones I don’t love still teach me as much about our world as the profiles, witty commentaries, and reviews.
Many of my friends, like me, are fiction writers, and our relationship to the fiction section of The New Yorker is more complicated. While, many rant and complain about its fiction, claiming the editors require rigorous re-drafting of stories, or that all the fiction has a certain style and the magazine doesn’t allow writers that challenge this aesthetic, (I mostly think their distaste for the fiction stems from knocking on the magazine’s door and never being granted entrance), none of us can deny the great writers who have come through those mid-town doors. Some of the greatest fiction writers in America’s literary history, like Ann Beattie, John Cheever, Phillip Roth, and Donald Barthelme, published their stories in the magazine, and its influence has help make the career of current literary success stories Junot Diaz and Jhumpa Lahiri. Despite any grievance with the magazine, most of us writers keep an eye on who it taps; because we know publication in The New Yorker has the possibility to create what we desire more than anything: the widest audience possible.
That said, I really believe many of the magazine’s readers, disinterested in writing themselves, don’t give a flying fuck about the fiction section. Odd, too, since publication in the magazine can almost ensure excitement about the arrival of a writer’s book; it’s like fiction readers and bookstores and the literary world know to pay more attention to a book if the writer has previously been published in The New Yorker, while ignoring the work when it is actually in the magazine. Well, Mr. New Yorker, I plan to knock off your top hat, give you some green colored contacts to replace those Benjamin Franklin bifocals, cut your hair, and force you to wear t-shirts with messages like Stop Snitching, and Fcuk You!
Jokes aside, the goal of this blog will be to take apart the short stories published in that magazine, not to tear them down, but to see how they work, and to talk about their themes and emotions. I often love The New Yorker’s short stories, and the ones I don’t love still teach me as much about our world as the profiles, witty commentaries, and reviews.
Now, I have set a few rules for myself. I will not talk about the biographical information of the writer. Who cares? Well, admittedly, it can be interesting to know the life behind an artist, but this blog is dedicated to talking about the work, that’s it. Also, unlike many book reviews or literary criticism, I don’t want to spend the whole blog comparing this short story to others by the author, or short stories and novels by other writers, past or present. I find this type of criticism fruitful for long time fans of a writer, but a person who reads a short story in The New Yorker may just want to read and share thoughts about that particular story, not that author’s career or the career of writers like her. Those are my two rules, and I’m sticking by them. Thanks for reading, and by tomorrow morning I will have posted a response to this week’s New Yorker short story by George Saunders called “Puppy”.
12 comments:
Hey Andrew. Interesting blog. I'd like to know more about you. You should expand your profile, like a myspace account, so that curious literary single girls from Wiliamsburg know whether you might be a likely candidate for a date!
That little thing was sort of inspired by George Saunders's voice.
I noted his use of exclamation points, something you and I have spoken of before. If a writer is pulling off his exclamations points, it's almost a guarantee I will enjoy the story, even if it's plotless and the characters are cardboard cut-outs. He manages to convey so much with that littel piece of punctuation. It lifts each sentence it appears after off the ground, don't you think? He could have left them out in a lot of cases and the meaning would have remained the same. But by inserting them, he adds a level of urgency, and a kind of ecstatic excitement, to the things these two mothers are thinking. They're alive! These people are alive and in love with things! And George Saunders is alive and in love with things! Isn't his enthusiasm great and emboldening! He makes me feel alive when I'm reading him! Like so few writers do!
What's interesting is how serious he's taking things. Somehow he's more serious about middle-class middle-America than any other contemporary I read. Maybe the humor allows him to go deeper, as if humor were an oxygen tank that let's us go deeper into the ocean/water of middle-class consciousness than a more "serious" (meaning less funny, and maybe even less compassionate) writer.
Also, I focused on his use of "ha ha" throughout. with those two words he's doing so much! They're doing the same lifting as the exclamation points. Without saying it, obviously, he's showing how these two women deny the negative thoughts they have, and the human tendency toward negativity itself. 'Well, what a super vacation for the kids, she thought, ha ha". That is a perfect description of the psyche of the upper-middle class housewife, who we know is upper-middle by the fact that she drives the Lexus, tells her son not to say "like," and is able to afford ridiculous video games for the kids. No tireless descriptions of her income and social stature. The tireless commitment these women have to raising their children in the suburbs, with all the responsibilities to the suburban code of manners, requires a sense of humor, and the light "ha ha" GS uses is an exquisite way of conveying this.
The flurry of emotions in the first page made me almost start crying. I coujd help it! Maybe because the transition from happy to sad was so rapid you realize how close the two really are? I don't know.
Either way, a fine introduction you're written. Some typos that you should probably change. And the white type on the black background made me semi-blind afterwards. But okay.
Jed
What an Idea. A date. Williamsburg chicks will just love me. I should put a picture of myself but use Mike Tyson's face instead of my own. I bet my bottom dollar Literary Williamsburg chicks love old Mikey T.
Oh yeah, what a beautiful story. I really thought the exclamations points were overused, and the "ha, ha ha", worked with Marie, the suburban house mom, but not with Callie, who appears to be of a much lower class, and a more somber persona.
The real achievement is how serious he takes these characters. I once remarked one of your things took a young female character very seriously, and this is why I meant that as a compliment. Maybe one of the greatest, most humane things a reader can give his or her characters is to take them seriously. To take them on their word.
Dead on about the love. The story is really about the love between Mother's and children, especially their insanely, rapid animal boys. A Time cover last year talked about the behavior problems with young boys pervading our American culture. (War video games; is this really surprising?) The acting out. I have seen this from my reading development teaching days. Yet, Saunders shows great love on the part of the mother's of these naughty, naughty boys.
That opening, and honestly much of the story, is remarkable.
I changed the background, gold on black. better? My post on Saunders is way too long. You know, I can read something ten times and still find a blatant typo on the eleventh reading. I really have to force myself to see typos. Fuck it, I'm not going to worry about them. I'll just embarass myself. Herzog.
For the record, I am just over 30, I don't read much contemporary fiction and I almost never read fiction in The New Yorker.
So, have at it with my blessings.
Very interesting introduction. I think this is a brilliant idea and look forward to following the comments. Too bad I will shortly be in Africa and won't have access to New Yorker short stories, but when I get back I can follow the blog more closely. This is the beginning of something amazing! (at least to me)
EBTF: "book review lite": reviewing stories instead of books. Novel concept. Would be a nice sounding board for those NYer stories that make you do any of the following:
-scratch your head
-ask if the NYer has lost its mind
-ask if the editor was asleep at the wheel (or sleeping with the wheel)
-laugh
-envy a writer
-want to run home and write the story you've been telling everyone but the page
-wonder if the NYer has a magic machine in which you insert a story and it comes out as an unsalted saltine
-fall in love with literature all over again
-fall in love with a writer
-fall in love with a character
-hate the NYer
-love the NYer
-call up an old friend
-photocopy and distribute
-yawn and turn to the cartoons at the bottom of the page
-add more bullets to this list
I'm the co-founder of a new literary magazine, Slice. Please check out our website and read about our debut issue, which includes an exclusive interview with Junot Diaz. www.slicemagazine.org.
great post. I would love to follow you on twitter.
Hi there everybody, I just signed up on this awesome community forum and wanted to say hiya! Have a incredible day!
Beyond any doubt blog with beneficial informations.
Cool internet site, I hadn’t found this before in my queries! Carry on with the superb job!
Hey, I am checking this blog using the phone and this appears to be kind of odd. Thought you'd wish to know. This is a great write-up nevertheless, did not mess that up.
- David
Hi! I really liked your forum, especially this section. I just signed up and immediately decided to introduce myself, if I'm wrong section, ask the moderators to move the topic to the right place, hopefully it will take me well... My name is Henry, me 34 years, humourist and serious man in one person. I apologize for my English
Post a Comment