New Yorker food issue

[bushey]

BklynEats -- Think of it as a way for people who are working their asses off in a super-stressed environment to make their long shifts survivable. In just about every work environment people develop their own lingo and stupid in-jokes that say a lot more about themselves than anyone else.

[tommy]

it's, um, humorous.

that is not subjective.

[Bux]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Of all the things said about Mario Batali and Babbo, that phase to denote a single diner at the bar may be one of the most innocuous of all. Given the way that slang arises and the way that most of us can mock ourselves, I didn't even see it as necessarily pejorative. I mean if you want the kitchen to pay extra attention to you, you can get a high priced hooker to keep you company at a table. A propos of Mario's rather populist appeal and the threads on eGullet about getting a shot at reservations, service and food on an equal basis with others, I would have thought the comments about his attitude towards VIPs might have offended some. It's also curious that his attitude towards not being in the kitchen isn't a topic of discussion here. I'm one of those who judges a chef's talents on his ability to train a staff to perform flawlessly when he's not there, but so many others like to know the chef is in the kitchen cooking when their food is being prepared.

[tommy]

It's also curious that his attitude towards not being in the kitchen isn't a topic of discussion here. I'm one of those who judges a chef's talents on his ability to train a staff to perform flawlessly when he's not there, but so many others like to know the chef is in the kitchen cooking when their food is being prepared.

that seems like another thread altogether. i am one who doesn't care if the chef is there (at places like babbo anyway). although, mario does seem to do a fair amount of "cooking" and he does seem to be involved, i wouldn't say that his approach is common as far as head chefs go.

[Suzanne F]

5) Gradual declines aren't acute and few people bother to dig up New Yorker articles from way back in order to view the decline all at once.

Speak for yourself, FG. I just spent 17 vacation days reading articles going back as far as the mid-1980s -- including the one by Mark Singer on the Chinos, as well as several by Jerome Groopman that relate closely to the very recent one on testosterone. In any case, you are, once again, the master of the obvious but unnecessary: true, gradual is the opposite of acute. So what? Those of us who have been reading the magazine for, oh, 40 years do, in fact, notice the changes. Those who do not read it probably do not. What source of pride is it to say one has not subscribed for 5 years? Snotty, is all I can say.

And no, there has NOT been an issue totally devoted to food before. Although there have been issues about food: remember the McPhee piece about the mythical Otto, who used white pepper to "preserve" the quality of the meat in his mythical restaurant?

[pjs]

What the fuck is a "dye cut"? pp40.

[Suzanne F]

A misspelling of "die cut." Oh dear, how the mighty New Yorker has fallen in its obsessive-compulsive editing.

[Bux]

The New Yorker is not what it was in the fifties and sixties, (nor am I) but the decline hasn't been consistent or steady. I have stopped my subscription at least once or twice out of protest or conviction, but in the end I decide that a couple of article a year justify the price and it's always good to have something around the house to grab to that's new to read if I need it. Several times it's occurred to me that the New Yorker is not what it was and I've looked to find the magazine that is what the New Yorker was. I then realize I was not a there for its formative years anyway and that no magazine will ever again be to me what the New Yorker was when I first met it, if only because I will never be that age again those who are that age live in another world.

I enjoyed the Trillin piece. I've always loved his work, but I often suspect others hold him in much higher regard and I sometimes wonder if he hasn't reached mythical proportions in their minds. He debunked an urban myth and he told his story in an engaging manner. Pure enough, if not the best, Trillin for me. It's just a periodical, not a compendium of the best writing of the decade. I have to say I found Jane Kramer's article interesting and maybe touching. Perhaps there were only a few lines I found thrilling, but all in all it moved me to at least continue reading. My basic hunger for words and phrases is not as great as it is for food, but there are dishes that didn't move me to finish them.

[Bux]

What the fuck is a "dye cut"? pp40.

Off hand I suppose it sounds as if you're reading a hand lettered sign in a beauty salon.

[srhcb]

The New Yorker is not what it was in the fifties and sixties, (nor am I) but the decline hasn't been consistent or steady. I have stopped my subscription at least once or twice out of protest or conviction, but in the end I decide that a couple of article a year justify the price

ditto

My parents have subscribed since 1946. I've "read" the New Yorker since before I could literally read. I've also canceled my subscription on several occasions, but always returned.

I've actually let nearly one year's worth of issues pile up without even lifting a cover until my Mother alerted me to the Food Issue. Once again, I guess I will be re-subscribing.

There really is no alternative publication available, although if I'm not going to read them, any periodical (Hot Rod, Hustler, Field & Stream) would serve as well.

It's hard to explain. Like why you contribute to the same charity year after year.

[pjs]

Suzanne,

The Department of Factual Verification must of taken the day off. Too much Marching Powder the night before.

pj

PS: Ransom is so much better than BLBC. IMHFO.

[Steve Klc]

In response to a Shaw comment, Suzanne said recently: "What source of pride is it to say one has not subscribed for 5 years? Snotty, is all I can say."

Well Suzanne--surely you can say more? Something more substantive or meaningful would help. If you've noticed changes in the magazine--what are they? It would seem you just might agree with Shaw's observations yet that irks you in some personal way that you have to criticize the messenger.

Shaw's post seems courageous in a typically Shaw way--just when every other media type is talking about the new Remnick "New Yorker" and how it has regained its stride under a new editor--Shaw goes against the grain and says, well, no, it isn't that good, it isn't that relevant, it could be even better and here's why. That's neither obvious nor un-necessary Suzanne. Doubt me? Remember who said early on that Ducasse was getting a bad rap in New York?

Shaw took the time to list a few factors in response to a typically thoughtful Researchgal post when she asked why continue to subscribe if the decline is increasingly obvious: "1) Cultural literacy among the set that reads the New Yorker, thus it's self-perpetuating; 2) No direct competition; 3) Inertia; 4) Doesn't look so bad viewed relative to the general decline in journalism; 5) Gradual declines aren't acute and few people bother to dig up New Yorker articles from way back in order to view the decline all at once."

I'd say the lack of a viable online presence affects the perception of #5, which mitigates against the New Yorker as well. If you have read the New Yorker for so long, Suzanne, you're in a position to add more to the discussion than inferring a misplaced sense of pride on Shaw's part for not subscribing and crystallizing his very reflective posts on this thread down to "snotty."

Agree or disagree, but make your argument, if one is to be made, dispassionately and on the merits.

And for those who think the New Yorker is the best of its kind--I'd ask if you are also reading the Atlantic Monthly as well? For me, that monthly has had sustained relevance and is the closest thing I've seen lately to a must-read among "intellectually engaging" magazines. It's more cogent, more tightly written and edited than the New Yorker--and even though Corby Kummer's best work is behind him, as he drifts further toward worthless "destination restaurant reviews" and the simple, Cal/Ital, Slow Food, terroir abyss, the magazine is still strong.

[researchgal]

This thread is making for some really interesting informal market research--wonder if anyone who works at the New Yorker has lurked!

Fat Guys comment re: no one digs up all the issues and views the decline all at once is particularly interesting to me--and I would suspect quite true. And, Steve Klc's endorsement of The Atlantic has me thinking as well, so I'll likely pick up an issue and see what I think. Klc, does Kummer have an ongoing food column in The Atlantic? Or, is it more focused on restaurant reviews?

Lastly, and not to take this too far afield from the original question, but I wonder to what degree the desire simply to feel a connection to New York, what's going on, what's hip, what's new, etc., is the reason why many continue to subscribe (particularly those of us who live outside NYC)--it definitely plays a role in my subscription.

[Steve Klc]

Tina, yes, for years and years. You can catch up with Corby here, the Atlantic maintains a model online presence and there's a substantial free archive of Corby's past work here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/food/

The recent restaurant review "worth building a trip around" is an interesting gimmick. Too bad he chose Colvin Run Tavern. Maybe it was a natural progression for Corby--since he started the restaurant review gig for Boston magazine a few years ago he must have discovered what a great (read easy) gig restaurant reviewing is compared to other forms of sourced, well-researched, well-thought-out food writing.

[suzilightning]

QUOTE]

However, the yearly subscription rate for those who are eGullet members or happen to have a mailing address in the U.S., is $16.95 assuming rates haven't changed since my price list was printed.

or, and this is a plug for my profession, read or borrow it from your local library(at least if youare int he states)

i've been picking at this during my meal breaks.

loved ronger angell's piece since i am a 40something who about 10 years ago discovered the joy of a really well made maritini.

i also felt gopnik was quite negative about the greenmarket.

the cartoons on pgs. 83 & 124 were great - especially since my other addiction is hawk watching

kolbert's article on health inspectors brought me back to when i took my food handlers certificate and the horror stories the

sanitarians told us about some of the restaurants they inspected.

on tap for today's lunch hour i think will be the batali aricle and, if i can get it in, the trillin.

[Jinmyo]

Special K, I read the Atlantic monthly. Harper's too, actually.

[tommy]

name calling always gets a smile out of me.

[Suzanne F]

I'm surprised that Steven Shaw needs Steve Klc to defend him. However, I must defend myself, which I will do because I respect the exalted positions here that both Steves occupy:

Within the context and timing of FG's unsubstantiated (but not necessarily untrue) statement

Some of those older pieces might be worth reading, given that the New Yorker has been in steady decline since before I could read.

followed by researchgal's question in direct response to that statement

The interesting thing is that we all continue to subscribe to it, despite the fact that it can be so hit or miss.  Why is that? [emphasis mine]

FG's nearly-immediate response (4 minutes later with no other statements by him in the interim) seems to me rather uncalled-for and unhelpful. Or, to put it another way, snotty. He might have given some backup to his assertion of "steady decline" as she requested, or stated his reasons for not subscribing.

I see no need to defend my statement any further; nor does The New Yorker need me to defend it. (Do not infer that I think there has been no decline; there certainly has, although not particularly steady.) Rather, it is for FG to defend his statement. Perhaps he would like to start a new thread on "The Decline of The New Yorker: Fact and Fiction, or Merely My Opinion."

[Jinmyo]

I think that the New Yorker still carries a weight of association that has more gravitas than what it is by itself today. Certainly Ross' classic New Yorker of Parker et al is part of why I read it now.

Not to defend Steve, Steve, or Steve either... And not to defend or, heaven forfend, offend Suzanne, Steve 1's assertion that the decline began before he could read was read by me as a reference to this. Or that.

[Fat Guy]

Newsflash: Fat Guy is snotty.

Stop the presses. Who knew?

[Suzanne F]

With all due respect

Hey, everybody here knows exactly what you are; you make it very clear time and time again. (Can you say, "Pompous"?) I just approach things literary through training in textual analysis. You're a lawyer; inferences that are drawn from straight analysis are ... what? You tell me.

[Fat Guy]

Well call me snotty or call me pompous but with due respect at least I can read -- I mean perform "textual analysis." Because when somebody says

He might have given some backup to his assertion of "steady decline" as she requested

and the original request was

The interesting thing is that we all continue to subscribe to it, despite the fact that it can be so hit or miss.  Why is that?

then somebody's "textual analysis" sucks.

[Jinmyo]

You can call me Ray...

[glenn]

food fight.

top 5...

hack writer - henry rollins

pompous hippie - jonathan richman

paperback writer - s. plotzkie ragtime revue band

weary ingenues & snotty brats - frumpies

empty magazine - robert fripp

[sorry, i'm very bored.]

[researchgal]

With all due respect 

Hey, everybody here knows exactly what you are; you make it very clear time and time again.  (Can you say, "Pompous"?)

Suzanne, I for one (of I'm sure many) have never thought of Fat Guy as pompous.

Boy, I was just looking for a little more feedback from folks, not a feeding frenzy or food fight!