The New Yorker (1-year)

In our opinion, The New Yorker is second only - barely - to The Atlantic Monthly in terms of scope of reporting, quality of writing and relevance of material. In fact, both magazines share a similar format and layout.

The New Yorker is essential if you live in New York City, visit frequently or have a vested interest. "Goings On" is perhaps the best collection of reviews and listings available for all things cultural (high and low) in the City.

For those who never step foot in the Empire State, never mind Gotham itself, you can skip right to "Talk of the Town". In this case, the "town" in question is the great global village, Planet Earth. The coverage starts off fast and furious...the first entries contain a few hundred words. Each subsequent story is given more space as the complexity of the stories themselves deepen. This may be one of the finest editorial and layout conventions used anywhere in American print.


Waiting for Godot... no more   September 17, 2003
fCh (GMT-6, USA)
23 out of 40 found this review helpful

For the past few years I had struggled with the decision as whether or not to renew the subscription to New Yorker. During such struggles, I would recall a few great pieces from the year past (e.g. Hersh's, Surowieki's) that always outweighed my increasing doubts about the magazine. And then, on the plus side, there are the cartoons and cover art that never fail you plus the last ten pages or so, with the arts and book reviews.

Over time I saw that renewing the subscription became almost reflex, just like waiting for a redeeming next issue. It seemed its editors were trying still to figure out what to make out of it(s audience). Issue by issue, I've found it less engaging and even annoying in its obsession with everything hip and on the fringes. I then started to realize that New Yorker cultivates the illusion of people's being in the know, amidst the stuff that matters, yet it's all noise that fades into monotony. Canceling the subscription mid-course was the right thing to do, and in retrospect, the easiest.


DON'T BUY THIS Magazine Destroyed by Liberal Editors   August 15, 2003
22 out of 88 found this review helpful

The New Yorker used to be my favorite magazine. Every week I would look forward to articles on diverse topics. Their book reviewed were viewed as gospel by me. All of that changed when Henrik Hertzberg became the editor. I always accepted the New Yorker's liberal stance as I consider myself open-minded, and actually quite liberal on health care issues. The old New Yorker was also fair to both sides. Not any more. Hertzberg's weekly diatribes will get to anyone who is not to the left of Howard Dean. I reached my breaking point this year with all the war editorials. Whereas I once looked forward to the magazine, Hertzberg has ruined the experience for me. So, after 11 years of subscribing, I have decided that I will join the thousands of other readers who have abandoned this once great magazine.

I highly recommend against subscribing to this magazine until Conde Naste comes to its senses and realize that Hertzberg is destroying the magazine. If you are conservative, subscribe to the Weekly Standard instead.


Variable   July 1, 2003
Michael J Edelman (Huntington Woods, MI USA)
21 out of 25 found this review helpful

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.