When did The New Yorker become....

[shanezomom]

When did The New Yorker become laced with profanity and ***ual references?

 

I used to really like the magazine back in the 80's when I subscribed during college. I just bought a new subscription because I knew ds 14 would enjoy the social commentary, fiction and humor in the magazine, which he does. But Wow! I took the time today to really read through the print version as well as online content through the ipad app. From an adult standpoint, much of what I read was interesting but I was shocked at the some of the content in what I always thought of as a pretty highbrow mag. As a mom, this is not material I want my son reading, no matter how witty or au courant. Is this just where culture is going? I know I sound like an old fogey....

[poppy]

I get the New Yorker and I'm not sure what you're talking about. Was it the fiction?

[Alice]

I've subscribed for years and now I'm wondering what I've been missing. 

[madteaparty]

Is it the motel owner article?

[GinaPagnato]

I know just what you mean. I canceled my subscription about 4 years ago due to that same issue. I enjoyed the articles, but absolutely cringed at the thought of one of my dc coming across some of them.

I truly don't know why witty must include explicit.

[Faithr]

I noticed a huge change a couple years ago when I kept having to visit the same doctors offices and I'd read their New Yorkers and how it was so much cruder and obscene, etc.  I hadn't read one in years but I used to back in the 1980s when a friend had a subscription.  I can't remember what I read but it was so raunchy it made me disgusted.  Yuck.  What used to pass for urbane and erudite is now edgy and angry, I suppose.

[shanezomom]

Page 29 of the April 18th print issue was really funny, but two references made me think, "Huh? Really necessary? Ds doesn't need that right now."  

 

Later this afternoon I was lounging in my chair and grabbed ds's iPad because it was handy. I tapped the NYer app to continue reading the short story in the April 25th issue titled "Waiting on the Miracle,"  which I had started on my laptop. (How great to be able to read magazines across platforms.) Ds had the issue open because he had read "A Special Seder," to me yesterday which we enjoyed. He had the app opened to the article "Teenage Dream," and it's amazing to me how the magazine embeds video frames within the story. I was marveling at this and I got to the last profile of the teen musicians and there's the **** bomb twice in one quote. The article links a sample song that each kid recorded and his, called "Skrt," has the same language. No warning, just there. 

 

Yes, then there's "The Voyeur's Motel." April 11th issue. 

 

There is so much good content and I'm disappointed that I can't just hand it over to ds without wondering where the other stuff is hiding. Maybe we just need to sit together and read the good articles together in the print version. Sigh. I did enjoy the links within the poem to hear the poet read it. 

 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Then again I don't think children are their target audience.
 

 

[meena]

There are plenty of adults who appreciate content that avoids profanity or hypersexualization.

[sarahbobeara]

I have been equally dismayed by the amount of profanity and sexual references. I subscribed because I liked a few G-rated articles last summer and now I'm stashing them deep in the recycling bin so the kids don't come across them and start reading.

 

Makes me miss the Saturday Evening Post my parents subscribed to in the 80's. 

[poppy]

Oh right the hotel piece. That was by Gay Talese , right? That was graphic. But it was fascinating! The true story of a voyeur who thinks he is an important researcher and possibly / probably causes a murder.

 

I really can't see 'hypersexualized', even with that article.

[madteaparty]

It just doesn't bother me at all to the point that I hadn't noticed... Maybe because my DS isn't ready to read these yet? I often want to clip parts of articles for him but it's really not time yet.

Sadly there's no writing like that happening on any sort of platform that I'm aware of (i particularly appreciate the long form pieces such as the science ones on CRISPR and the Japanese researcher scandal). I could do without some of the short stories, but that's a personal taste issue. Sometimes there's a gem like the recent George Saunders one that makes up for everything.

[liber]

Disappointed in the magazine too. Last year there was an article on a**l sex. I used to think it was highbrow too. Now I think it is vulgar and crass and will never get a subscription again.

[shanezomom]

Is there a good alternative? Any suggestions?

 

I found some good articles on the NPR website.

[Bluegoat]

I haven't noticed specifically with The New Yorker, but I have with other magazines I considered to have a similar profile.  I noticed it about 7 years ago with our local free arts/local politics/entertainment weekly, suudenly many of the articles were littered with really superfelous profanity and articles about sex clubs, masturbation, or whatever started appearing regularly.

 

It does seem to be what the editors consider authentic, edgy, and hip. And many of the writers are quite good young writers - it isn't that they are incapable. I think it's a really cheap and ineffective way to achive relevance, but it seems to be percolating up to the higher-end publications as well.  maybe the same kind of young writers are getting hired now for these publications and are bringing that approach along with them, or maybe the publishers think it might win them a younger audience. 

 

One thing that occurs to me that seems to be somehow related - a lot of these same writers seem to think that I really care about them personally - so much of what they write is about their own experiences or perspectives, it's almost always got autobiographical content.  Perhaps they are writing the way they speak, because it is supposed to represent their voice?  

[Miss Tick]

Is there a good alternative? Any suggestions?

 

I found some good articles on the NPR website.

Depends on what you are looking for, exactly, but The Sun Magazine might be worth a look. It has been years since I read it, so it may have the same issues people have mentioned here. I wouldn't have noticed. Edited April 25, 2016 by SusanC

[Wabi Sabi]

I read a lot of their articles online, but this post makes me think that maybe I should consider subscribing to it...  :leaving:

[Farrar]

I don't censor my own reading material for fear my kids will see it. I mean, if it makes *you* uncomfortable then that's one thing, but I wouldn't stop reading for fear my kids saw it. I mean, I'm comfortable saying to my kids, you're not ready to read this and I'm okay if they see something that has some dubious content sometimes. Any kids who need to get their dubious content jollies from the New Yorker are going to turn out okay anyway, I think. ;)

[poppy]

I haven't noticed specifically with The New Yorker, but I have with other magazines I considered to have a similar profile.  I noticed it about 7 years ago with our local free arts/local politics/entertainment weekly, suudenly many of the articles were littered with really superfelous profanity and articles about sex clubs, masturbation, or whatever started appearing regularly.

 

It does seem to be what the editors consider authentic, edgy, and hip. And many of the writers are quite good young writers - it isn't that they are incapable. I think it's a really cheap and ineffective way to achive relevance, but it seems to be percolating up to the higher-end publications as well.  maybe the same kind of young writers are getting hired now for these publications and are bringing that approach along with them, or maybe the publishers think it might win them a younger audience. 

 

One thing that occurs to me that seems to be somehow related - a lot of these same writers seem to think that I really care about them personally - so much of what they write is about their own experiences or perspectives, it's almost always got autobiographical content.  Perhaps they are writing the way they speak, because it is supposed to represent their voice?  

 

For the freebie papers, I hink that's the Dan Savage effect.  Excellent writer who does a XXX advice column opened some doors in that area (with some less talented writers).  Doesn't have anything at all to do with The New Yorker, though.

 

But, yes, the "new journalism" - where the writer is inserted as a part of the story -  is  a popular device that some New Yorker writers employ. Particularly ones doing profiles.  Gay Talese, who I mentioned above as the writer of the notorious hotel article, was on the forefront of making that change. He wrote a famoui article called "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold."  Because he was sent to do a profile of Sinatra  who , it turns out, had no interest in being profiled......so collecting the story became part of the story. It really is a great bit of journalism, worth reading even if you don't like  Sinatra.   And again, one very good writer spawned a whole lot of other writers, some of whom aren't so great.  But if all magazine features  were impersonal, 3rd person, attempting to be purely objective, I do not think we would be better off.

[madteaparty]

For the freebie papers, I hink that's the Dan Savage effect. Excellent writer who does a XXX advice column opened some doors in that area (with some less talented writers). Doesn't have anything at all to do with The New Yorker, though.

 

But, yes, the "new journalism" - where the writer is inserted as a part of the story - is a popular device that some New Yorker writers employ. Particularly ones doing profiles. Gay Talese, who I mentioned above as the writer of the notorious hotel article, was on the forefront of making that change. He wrote a famoui article called "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold." Because he was sent to do a profile of Sinatra who , it turns out, had no interest in being profiled......so collecting the story became part of the story. It really is a great bit of journalism, worth reading even if you don't like Sinatra. And again, one very good writer spawned a whole lot of other writers, some of whom aren't so great. But if all magazine features were impersonal, 3rd person, attempting to be purely objective, I do not think we would be better off.

David Sedaris too (I usually skip his) as well as Elif Batuman(I don't skip hers!)

The motel article was rather infuriating. It sounded as if the author set the timer for statue of limitations to expire so he could get a book out of it. Wasn't a crime happening while he was in possession of the info?