That’s correct as a description, not as a summary.
It is elitist in several senses, but that doesn’t mean it is without considerable value.
BTW, there’s a pretty good deal going right now for the DVD-ROM archive (every page of every issue from the magazine’s first eighty years).
Well, you know what they say: snobbery is in the eye of the beholder.
Ever yours,
Eustace 
Even if it is elitist, why the antagonism from some quarters? The advertising definitely is geared towards the well-heeled, and as such is actually not elitist since it hawks the “things that all rich people are supposed to have or do, especially in the American Northeast”. Sure, Tiffany diamonds and Mikimoto pearls are highly desirable because everybody has them, dear!
The content’s a completely different story. To say this is for snobs is to deny the value of anything not written for the mass market.
I enjoyed it in grad school when I didn’t have two dimes to rub together, and certainly couldn’t afford a Stave puzzle - so it is not elitist in that sense.
If elitist means appealing to those who have an attention span of more than five minutes, and care about good writing, then I think it is guilty.
Which quarters? Most here seems to love it. Shodan presumably doesn’t like the “liberal” politics. (I don’t either, in some cases.)
What?
Quite the contrary. In many respects, the magazine is valuable because it’s not for “the mass market.” (The Manhattan-centrism does perhaps reduce its wider value a little, but still.)
That’s an incredibly elitist thing to say. But, basically, yes.
[quote=“eleanorigby, post:56, topic:537560”]
The Janet Malcolm “A Reporter at Large” story on the murder trial of Mazoltov Borukhova has left me stunned. It reads like a Greek tragedy. I still don’t know how to think of her or the murder. IMO, this article is a treatise on truth–can we ever know it? Is there such a thing as an essential truth?
I am left with many questions: is she mentally ill? Did her husband do what she accused him of? How is their daughter now? What of the paid assassin–his family?
I did finish the article and while I can’t think of an alternative to the prosecution’s theory, it does tell you a lot about the way individual personalities come together to shape the events of a trial, and the minor things that can make a big difference in the way the case is made- and yes, how hard it is to figure out what really happened.
[quote=“Marley23, post:66, topic:537560”]
<<<<<SPOILER BELOW>>>>>>
I finished the article last night, scratching my head. I’m not sure I understood the point or gist of the article. It seemed to me that the reporter was implying (if not saying outright) that the trial was a miscarriage of justice, and assuming her reporting is accurate, I was agreeing most of the way through the story;. And yet by the end of the article, I felt convinced that the Doctor was guilty as charged, deserved the sentence she received.
I have a strong feeling that I missed something. Anyone care to enlighten me?
.
I don’t think she felt the trial was a miscarriage of justice. I think she did feel that Bukharova’s motives and her relationship with her late husband were mysterious even after the conviction. Malcolm wrote at one point that for her (and for, I think, Fass) the case boiled down to “she couldn’t have done it/she must have done it.” The crime and it’s reasons seem incomprehensible, but there was really no other possible interpretation of the evidence.
The New Yorker is the standard by which other magazines get judged. Atlantic is good, but it’s not The New Yorker. Harper’s is good, but it’s not The New Yorker. The Walrus is good, but…
I remember my english teacher in Grade 10 showing me the magazine for the first time. It was an article connecting Walt Whitman, Carl Sandberg, e e cummings and Charles Bukowski that she wanted to point out, but I remember taking it home, looking through the concert listings and drooling. At the time, my home town was lucky to get Rush and The Stampeders once a year - NYC got every band I idolized in a month!
I dunno. I admit I had trouble following the article (and picking it up and putting it down over the course of several days didn’t help). Some things that come to mind:
That jerry-rigged silencer–did it have fingerprints on it? Did it truly silence the gun, so Bukharova’s statement would then be true? But the cops say that people 3 blocks away heard the gun, so did it fire as if there were no silencer?
And what of the law guardian and the judge? Neither is without blame here. I’m not here to advocate for Bukharova’s innocence, but surely their behavior and choices throughout the trial imply at least unprofessional behavior, if not mental illness (the law guardian)?
Bottom line: little girl loses her father in a dreadful, violent manner in front of her; girl’s mother imprisoned. And do we expect Michelle to grow up hale, hearty and whole?
ETA: Is there anything more elitist than the inverted snobbery present in this country? “I’m just plain folks”. Like hell. :rolleyes:
TNY is pretty high-brow stuff. If that’s what you like, there’s no place better.
I’m going to break the spoiler tag because we’re discussing a magazine article about a case that’s more than a year old. Nothing personal, just a readability thing. Anyway: contrary to their name silencers don’t make a gun truly silent. Even if the bleach bottle silencer worked, there still would have been an audible sound. I’m told a silenced gun sounds a little like a car door slamming. Regardless, we never find out if Borukhova [I checked the spelling this time] was really at the scene when her husband was shot. I don’t know if anybody except her could answer that question.
In addition to being a conspiracy nut, the guardian did seem unprofessionally hostile to Bukharova, I agree. And yes, if they hadn’t taken her daughter from her that way (against her ex-husband’s wishes, too!) this whole thing probably wouldn’t have happened.