new yorker writers are fighting on twitter guys

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/authors/susan_orlean_counters_dan_baum_on_twitter_116264.asp

I wouldn't consider either of those people writers

cmon bro twitter is legit art form now eff u

"fighting"

whiney u need to unclench

i saw susan orlean post something catty, was wondering what it was about

whiney as a twitter celeb i think you need to step in

i just hope she never finds out uh oh im having a fantasy doesnt consider her a real writer

rap writers are coming up with fake paul wall quotes on twitter, way funnier imo

www.twitter.com/noz

Wow she really looks nothing like Meryl Streep.

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/original/danbaum.jpg

what the hell is that?

pimping your wacky rap-pun stand-up routine in more than one thread = NAGL

still love u tho

wasn't paul wall in olivia tremor control

olivia twitter control

guys this thread is about the new yorker writers, who are fighting, on twitter

pimping your wacky rap-pun stand-up routine in more than one thread = NAGL

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:06 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

on the grind like coffee grounds

susan korlean jabbar

looool @ dr. morbius's southern dandy cousin

I found Baum's account pretty fascinating, although I just realized that I was picturing David Wallace from The Office every time he mentioned Remnick.

link? twink?

i think baum is kind of a big weenie about all of this--he wanted to quit the nyer and move to costa rica because his eight grade daughter wanted to have a "family adventure."

the first half is in non twitter form here (scroll down)

http://www.metafilter.com/81577/Twitter-the-antiNew-Yorker

i tried to read it on twitter but reading a story like that backwards in broken-up 140 character tweets is stupid.

even in the right order it looks dumb:

http://www.danbaum.com/Nine_Lives/New_Yorker_tweets.html

The ponderous and sometimes solipsistic tone of most New Yorker writers probably fits in well with twitter.

I liked writing for an intelligent readership with broad interests. I liked the editing, and the factchecking.

The biggest disappointment was learning that, after all, it’s not only about the work on the page.

i mean like duh

I didn't think he wanted to quit the New Yorker for the Costa Rica year -- Remnick assured him that he could file stories from anywhere in the world, then reneged on that.

dBaum's world

bosses change their mind about stuff all the time, though!

poop yorker

Sure, sure, I'm just correcting you, Que.

his two options were:

1. move to costa rica because his 8th grade daughter wanted to have an adventure and send the NYer proposals for articles, which they may or may not go with.

2. stay in america and continue to work for the NYer.

right jaymc--my bad. he didn't want to quit.

dont think baum comes across that bad. but neither does remnick--sounds mostly like they were just two dudes with different working styles and orlean is taking it all hella personally

Orlean:

Dissing your boss? Whining abt story credits? Writing stories that aren't good enough to run? Seeming to dislike the mag itself?

It seems like only the first two are accurate summations. Baum clearly thought all of his work was good, even if Remnick didn't. And though he disliked the atmosphere of the magazine's office, that doesn't amount to disliking the magazine itself -- in fact, he has a lot of nice things to say about it.

dont think baum comes across that bad. but neither does remnick--sounds mostly like they were just two dudes with different working styles and orlean is taking it all hella personally

― rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:30 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i think he comes across bad in the sense that he's airing this stuff publicly... even if he has legit grievances it seems a bit cheap (and bizarrely self-destructive) to me

well its kind of the opposite of self-destructive given that he has a book coming out

he comes across as very naive and sheltered

And though he disliked the atmosphere of the magazine's office, that doesn't amount to disliking the magazine itself -- in fact, he has a lot of nice things to say about it.

see, i think he *does* dislike the magazine. and one of the points i think baum is trying to make is that though he likes the magazine itself, he hates the atmosphere there, and it's hard to separate the two

The biggest disappointment was learning that, after all, it’s not only about the work on the page.

and yeah why he's doing all this via twitter is a big ol mystery

i think baum looks a little bad just because theres an element of pettiness to the whole thing that lingers no matter how fair-minded he attempts to be about the nyer and remnick and the whole thing about the atmosphere - u dindt work there! u visted like a dozen times over three years how do u know how happy anyone else is?

also and i can lol sympathize with this but it seems really defensive and i can imagine having some many of ur stories killed will do this but its a little sad to be seeking affirmation via twitter imo

Can I ask a question? Who actually cares what Dan Baum thinks about the New Yorker or what Susan Orlean thinks about what Dan Baum thinks?

xpost: I think Baum looks bad because of that fucking hat.

orlean is like the "good" ilxors who show up on I MUST PROTEST threads to back the mods and tell the meta/zing dudes to stop whining

^^^^^
(signs i spend too much time on ilx)

the new yorker is not a democracy, baum

Can I ask a question? Who actually cares what Dan Baum thinks about the New Yorker or what Susan Orlean thinks about what Dan Baum thinks?

― Alex in SF, Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:40 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dunno i thought it was kind of hilarious/interesting

well its kind of the opposite of self-destructive given that he has a book coming out

― rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:36 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

if twittering about the new yorker makes his book a bestseller and gets him set for life, sure. if it doesnt i cant imagine he's going to have an easy time finding freelance work, which he says is his bread and butter, in the future.

Can I ask a question? Who actually cares what Alex in SF thinks about Dan Baum or the New Yorker?

I kept reading the Baum piece thinking okay here comes the part where he confesses he fucked Remnick's wife. That'll bring the drama. Instead pffft.

Orlean's response isn't worth the twitter it was twitted on.

pistols MLA Handbooks at dawn

we should invite more dentists, those guys get foul

they might really sink their teeth into this argument

they could really get at the "root" of its cause

"drill" some points home

you've been saving those up haven't you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhMNGhcwMo

best dentist ever!

Que it seems like you want your 'reviews' to be something else entirely. Like nabisco I read reviews to see if something is interesting or 'good' or whatever. The more critical analyses you're looking for are more rewarding after you've read the work , most of the time, and IMO are a different animal altogether

so what has dan baum been up to lately

writing about his gun, in harpers

http://www.theawl.com/2010/08/real-america-dan-baums-sexy-gun

Earlier today we linked to a selection of questions answered by author Dan Baum about his latest Harper’s cover story, “Happiness is a Worn Gun.” Baum’s examination of the feelings about carrying a concealed handgun may on the surface appear reasonable and inoffensive. A deeper look proves this is not the case. That's not all that surprising from a writer who starts his reasoning on gun research, “Why do we need to explain why we like guns? Nobody feels a need to explain why people like guitars, or radios, or model trains. What makes guns different?" The obvious answer to Baum's dumb question is "because guitars and model trains don't kill people." But Baum’s is the wrong question.

The right question (besides "This guy really had a job at The New Yorker?") is "Why does Dan Baum like guns so much?"

he probably keeps his gun in his hat

http://sonofboldventure.blogspot.com/2011/03/profile-writing-basics.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/03/09/esquire-writer-chris-jones-explains-how-profile-writing-works-if-you-have-no-desire-to-publish-a-profile-story.aspx

http://sonofboldventure.blogspot.com/2011/03/tom-scocca-is-wrong.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/04/21/what-would-chris-jones-think-of-the-new-chris-jones-article.aspx

http://sonofboldventure.blogspot.com/2011/04/response-to-tom-scocca.html

lol @ ppl that write for esquire

wow, this scocca guy seems like a real bore

ha i think jones comes off as the boot in this but ymmv

*boor

tom's a caca

I wouldn't consider either of those people writers

jones: here's how you do a thing

scocca: wtf are you kidding, u suck

jones: no i am not, i am really good at this, how dare u

scocca (later): lol this fuckin guy, still sucks, i shall prove it to u

jones: TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTE

this is total "lock them both in a box and drop said box into the ocean" territory

Jones would come off better not digging at Scocca's employer, but he is responding to someone taking shots at him for no reason.

Esquire has gotten kind of shitty lately, though - more empty celeb profiles and less of the stuff Jones is pointing too that are good reads.

no reason? scocca is a media critic!

It's pretty much a classic arguing-past-each-other situation. But Jones seems to be more right -- if you're an aspiring magazine writer, which is who jones is presumably targeting, you're not going to get the chance to profile Clooney, so it's irrelevant how many times Clooney has been on the cover of Esquire. You're also not going to get the cover story, for that matter, and it's not like cover stories represent the full range of pieces in Esquire. And there are other magazines that are less celebrity-driven.

re: distinctive cutaway, the '59 Chet Atkins is a single cutaway where the '62 is a double-cutaway. before I criticized that point I might have GISed "Country Gentleman"

the 'wah i didn't win an award' post is . . . something

scocca's being a dick but jones is being a crybaby. i know who id rather hang out with.

and they wonder why people don't read magazines anymore

i like tom scocca, i remember he did some parody of j safran foer that was hilarious? or am i thinking of someone else

I was walking George in the park again earlier this hour when she suddenly lunged and gobbled up half the remains of a dead squirrel. Five minutes later, she vomited it all over the grass. She vomited it up so easily and nonchalantly, it gave me a pang. Dogs have such pure, honest reactions to things–both coming and going.

apparently scocca looks like james spader and jones is canadian

this alters my thinking slightly

I'm w/Jones on this one.

I was walking George in the park again earlier this hour when she suddenly lunged and gobbled up half the remains of a dead squirrel.

Having not read the links beforehand, I read this going "Okay I think there are some issues with this person."

talk about a bun fight

idgi, jones is being such a sensitive baby abt this stuff? While scocca is being hilar? also his Jeff bridges profile sucks?

haha exactly

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rupert-murdoch-janet-malcolm-6075803

what a fart butt

i don't even know who tom junod is but now i dislike him

he is a fart butt

it's not clear to me that he even understands janet malcolm's critique of journalism--he never engages with it.

he also misquotes it

i loved that malcolm piece about the murder trial in queens

After all, Malcolm is well-known for her flat declaration that journalism — without qualifiers — is "morally reprehensible," and in the pages of the Times the story of Rupert Murdoch's entanglement in Great Britain's hacking scandal would seem to bear her out.

i think u mean morally indefensible bro

sort of wish malcolm would respond to that post with "oh, wow" but i'm sure she has better things to do

the best part of the original malcolm quote--"every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible"--is that it pre-calls out tom junod as either too stupid or too full of himself. probably he is both!

i know, right? not that i know what i'm talking about but i over-identify with journalists through my sister. when she was starting out with freelance reporting, she was like, "journalism is basically learned sociopathy."

but he has a point, there is basically no difference between janet malcolm and rupert murdoch. morally speaking, i mean.

(she is the Henny Youngman of self-hating journalists)

is he referring to the Hennesy Youngman and if so from whence does he get the authority to refer to him in the familiar???

lol bro henny youngman is a famous old comedian

oh...man...you have no idea how many doors are being shattered right now

oh man hennesy youngman really does look like a black henny youngman

whoa