The first issue arrived in my mailbox in less than three weeks! The publication, of course, is great. Definitely snobbish, but covers a variety of topics and is extremely well-written.
People who read the New Yorker like to write. I read the New Yorker, and so I'm taking the time to write this review.
Why am I doing this? Do I really expect to make a difference in someone's buying habits? Do I think that giving free advertising to a product, no matter how loyal I am to it, is a good thing?
No. I'm basically doing it so people will read the words I write. If you understand this sentiment and don't already read the New Yorker, it's really time that you started. All any reviewer of the New Yorker anywhere will do is share their experiences and love affairs with the magazine with anyone who will take the time to read what they wrote. Now you don't have to, cause I summarized them all, so stop reading reviews and start reading stuff by much better writers--the writers you'll find in the New Yorker.
New Yorker is one of the best magazines available in the US. It has a good mixture of articles on current events, culture, fiction, humor. And one shouln't forget those notorious cartoons. The lengths of the articles range from the very long to the very short, and should amply sustain one's weekly need for reading material.
Please be aware that all articles have a coat of liberal paint. But the New Yorker is probably the most sensible left of center media source in this country.
I have taken this magazine for about 2 years now, and personally, I enjoy it quite a bit. I am not a native of the New York area, nor have I any affiliations with the fine city. Personally I find the articles to be so well written in the New Yorker it is hard to put down. For me this means the first section of the paper is under appreciated, as its all about New York City, gossip and much more. The articles are of a wide varity of topics and often bring up points that may have had rolling around in your conscious but have never let them bubble up to the top. Fascinating articles can range from politics, famous lives of famous peoples, religious societies, and so much more.
This magazine is great if you are a reader. Articles are wordy, and worthwhile. This isn't something your going to be reading just the highlights through. I hardly find myself able to finish a magazine before the next one comes. If you are open minded, and love to read quality articles that will make you think, this magazine for you.
The New Yorker was started by Harold Ross as a humor magazine, and grew into one of the world's most celebrated literary magazines. It never really made money or had a huge circulation, but survived thanks to the generosity of a number of private owners and publishers. I began reading the New Yorker thanks to my mother, who subscribed for nearly four decades. Through it I discovered Berton Rouche's fascinating "Medical Detective" stories, Calvin Trillin's hilarious stories about food and travel, the brilliant writing of John McPhee, and scores of other contemporary reporters and short story writers.
Then, in the 1980s, Trisha Brown then managed to completely trash the magazine in only a few short years. Circulation took off- for a time, at least- but the reputation of the New Yorker was sacrificed as it was turned into a gossip magazine. The low point, for me, at least, was a fawning article on poor Erich Honnekar's trial in Germany where he was being charged for ordering the shootings of those East Germans who tried to flee to the west. (Brown's husband, it turned out, had been retained by Honnekar's defense team to do PR work).
Old time subscribers defected by the thousands, and the new subscribers, being a fickle lot, let their subscriptions lapse as well once The New Yorker was no longer a hip fashion accessory to be seen on your coffeetable alongside the latest issue of Interview.
In recent years the magazine has regained some- but not all- or its former glory. The political analysis is still of the fawning variety (neither the Clintons nor the Kennedys can do any wrong) and the fiction has become even more parochial, but a lot of the good reporting has returned. I don't subscribe, but I do peruse issues on the newstand regularly in case I might come across a particularly intersting story. I suggest you might do the same.
The New Yorker has a lot to offer as a magazine but it's a mixed bag. Some weeks it has excellent feature articles on topics I'm very interested in and other weeks not. I used to subscribe but now I buy off the newsstand when the topics it covers are of particular interest.
The New Yorker should get raves for being a serious and somewhat intellectual magazine. The feature articles are very in-depth and are from top-notch investigative journalists. The magazine's coverage of Al Queda, terrorism, Afghanistan, and the intelligence community have been absolutely superb. It falters a little, in my opinion, on its coverage of national politics. Nevertheless, typically the feature articles are meaty and in-depth, if sometimes a bit dry and tedious.
The rest of the magazine is also a mixed bag. I don't live in New York city so the city specific stuff is of little interest to me. A lot of times the weekly features are interesting and other times not.
Overall I rate the magazine highly, but it's not one that I would read on a weekly basis.
I currently subscribe to the New Yorker. Generally I find each issue contains 2-3 "meaty" feature articles really worth reading, a bunch of listings for NYC cultural events & a fiction piece. I could care less about the last two items, but the magazine is worth getting for the feature articles alone. Malcolm Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point) is my favorite regular contributor, though the writing is uniformly of high quality. The articles often deal with quirky topics you're unlikely to find anywhere else.
Before, I used to read the Economist but the writing wasn't very descriptive, and the opinions / predictions of the writers were vague. Overall, the New Yorker's style is precisely the opposite of the Economist. The writing is very flowery and descriptive, although sometimes, especially for theatre or classical music articles, a piece can seem pretentious, trying to impress by name-dropping. For people who are unacquainted with those topics, it's a big waste of space. It's not the topics themselves I'm disinterested in, because if someone writes a biographical style piece on, say, Mahler, then I can enjoy it because I don't need to know anything previously to enjoy it.
Sports articles can be good, but it's hit or miss for me (not one of my biggest interests). The short fiction section is usually good, however I usually don't get to it.
My favorite works are the travel / geopolitic / sociological writings. Some of my recent favorites: "Downfall, the end of a West African dictatorship", "The Hunted, Did American conservationists in Africa go too far?", and "Drinking Games, How much people drink may matter less than how they drink it." These tend to be the principle story, and cover the largest amount of pages.
One thing: the cartoons aren't very funny. The most they ever elicit from me is a grin. Sometimes they display wit, but they're just not funny. Maybe it's just me?
Recommended, especially for the online price. You'll never be without something to read, what with 52 issues a year at your door.
Simply the best weekly with the most diverse fiction and non-ficture articles in America. From the the complex to the seemingly simple the writers always compile a thorough discussion of a story.The cartoons are without peer and I would buy it even if it only had cartoons. A true gem of a magazine which I really look forward to receiving and which I never tire of reading,sending and quoting to friends. A very urbane and sophisicated publication that really is only slightly revelevant to the New York market as it has universal appeal.I only wish it was longer and had more fine articles to savor.
Good magazine for contemporary articles. The poetry is pretty bad. The comics are very funny.