SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Why We Are Here Today: A Letter from Chris Hughes

PLANK JANUARY 17, 2013

Why We Are Here Today: A Letter from Chris Hughes

BY CHRIS HUGHES

Home News: On January 28th we’re relaunching our magazine, website, and tablet app. As we bridge the new and old, I wanted to take a step back and reflect on where we’ve come in nine short months.

Since our founding in 1914, The New Republic has had a rich history of incubating great talent and surfacing thought-provoking ideas. From readers like Teddy Roosevelt to Herbert Hoover to JFK, The New Republic has always shaped some of the most important conversations in the country.

Last spring, I bought The New Republic because of this amazing history. My belief was, and always has been, that a democratic society needs a thriving and serious media to function well—one that is dedicated to provoking new ideas and new ways of approaching the important issues facing us today. Tailored for a smart, curious and socially aware audience, The New Republic embodies these journalistic ideals by going deeper than the headlines in a timely, unbiased fashion.

On day one I was greeted by an impressive roster of journalists—Jonathan Cohn, John Judis, Alec MacGillis, Timothy Noah, Noam Scheiber and Leon Wieseltier, to name only a few. And over the past nine months, in the spirit of making our content richer, deeper, and more diverse, we have doubled our editorial staff to bring on the respected voices of Julia Ioffe, Walter Kirn, Michael Kinsley, Noreen Malone, Judith Shulevitz, and Marc Tracy. These writers are backed by some of the most talented and dexterous editors in our field. In building this new team, we’ve placed an even bigger focus on exploring the worlds of society, culture, and big ideas—all alongside our political roots.

All this said, a big challenge faces us, just as it faces the publishing industry at large: adapting to how you actually read and consume content. In the spirit of serving our growing audience of readers better, we are overhauling our design—across the print magazine, website and tablet applications—to place less emphasis on generating clicks and more emphasis on clean, compelling reading environments that facilitate a collection of voices—including yours. We want you to enjoy access to our content anywhere and do so seamlessly, no matter the device. These changes will all debut at the moment of our relaunch on January 28th.

Thank you for your loyalty, support and shared commitment to thought-provoking content. Any progress we have made and will make in the future we owe to you. As a sign of our appreciation, sign up to get updates about our relaunch and free access to our completely redesigned app.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 64 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

64 comments

Get rid of the pop-up that makes this site impossible to browse on a mobile device! Seriously guys this has been the most irritating thing for the past 6 months!

- subterra

January 17, 2013 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's an app?

- basman

January 17, 2013 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, not sure if you are kidding but apps are what let me view netflix on my nook I find this a little grating: Since our founding in 1914...what is with the royal we? Why not just say since its founding. At most the our should be reserved for family owned multi generational businesses.

- blackton

January 17, 2013 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Best of luck for your new phase!

- Wonderland

January 17, 2013 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And here I thought this would be a sweeping revelation of how the US of A has wound up in the soup; silly me.

- Sophia

January 17, 2013 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Welcome Chris. Great to see you, thanks for the infusion of new energy. Best of luck!

- WandreyCer

January 17, 2013 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As journalism used to have something to do with writing, I'd like to point out that the last sentence in the second paragraph beginning "From readers" is clumsy, as "The New Republic" seems to be a dangling -- or at least misplaced -- modifier that has no logical relationship to "readers." Also, the word "amazing" should be used sparingly. For things that are actually amazing.

- ironyroad

January 17, 2013 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am withholding judgment till I see the focus of the redesigned magazine. I am especially curious to what place the arts and literature section will have in the updated new The New Republic. I am also curious about how the magazine will handle I foreign affairs issues. Best of luck Chris and I appreciate your sense of history.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 1:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am withholding judgment till I see the focus of the redesigned magazine. I am especially curious to what place the arts and literature section will have in the updated new The New Republic. I am also curious about how the magazine will handle I foreign affairs issues. Best of luck Chris and I appreciate your sense of history.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 1:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interested to see what you'll be doing. And thanks to Chris for being willing to invest in TNR and its mission. We have too few democratically-minded leaders in our society.

- polcereal

January 17, 2013 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I applaud Mr Hughes for stepping up to the plate to keep TNR going. It's not cheap, as the magazine's previous owners could and did attest. Like others, I'm keen to see how the mag changes, if at all. A little change might be a good thing and would certainly be in keeping with TNR's history.

- DC Spence

January 17, 2013 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right on - it's important.

- Sophia

January 17, 2013 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or, as an alternative proposed by a non-subscriber friend, "From" should be replaced by "For" (making it a prepositional rather than a structural issue). "For readers from Teddy Roosevelt to Herbert Hoover to JFK, The New Republic has always shaped etc etc" is a simpler formulation and makes clear sense. Sorry if anyone's bored, but I think that an editorial piece announcing historic changes in a journal justly proud of its writing deserves a little care and attention.

- ironyroad

January 17, 2013 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, agreed. Also, "surface" is not a transitive verb. Also, it's awfully banal. The headline is "Why We Are Here Today." Here's the answer: "[A] democratic society needs a thriving and serious media to function well—one that is dedicated to provoking new ideas and new ways of approaching the important issues facing us today. Tailored for a smart, curious and socially aware audience, The New Republic embodies these journalistic ideals by going deeper than the headlines in a timely, unbiased fashion." I'm not quite sure what any of that means, although it does sound a touch inaccurate. Since when has TNR been "unbiased"? I always thought TNR was characterized by sharp argument. Now I'm told that it has mainly to do with "new ideas," "big ideas," and "the worlds of society [and] culture." Ugh, sounds like The Atlantic. I hope we're not in for the Gladwellization of TNR.

- JakeH

January 17, 2013 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jake, it sounds like a promotional text designed to not alienate anyone. I'm ok with that -- there's a time and place for the fuzzily inspirational -- but it just comes across as also opaque and clumsy in places. Like the "From readers" sentence, the one you quote is also problematic: I'm not sure how "going deeper than the headlines" and "timely" are supposed to work together. I think I know what it means -- TNR doesn't wait to investigate current issues but does so promptly -- but it just reads so oddly. I mean, even in the mainstream press the content of a story normally goes "deeper than the headlines" anyway, no?

- ironyroad

January 17, 2013 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Speaking of history, where is the TNR Archives? If it's gone, so am I after my subscription runs out in June. I'm tired of the pop-ups, too, subterra. My McAfee Site Adviser continually warns me that TNR is a junk site when I go to it. The pop-ups sometimes give me that impression. And a shout-out to arnon: how about comments allowed after book reviews and more foreign affairs articles? I like to learn about them there furrin countries, too.

- magboy47.

January 17, 2013 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's all this nitpicking about? It is a "promotional text," and what would one expect from the owner and CEO of a company. However he is aware of the magazines history even if he left out its history in the arts with writers and editors such as Edmund Wilson, Lionel Trilling and Alfred Kaziin. I'll wait for the first few issues to come out before deciding if the magazine is worth subscribing to.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What magboy said. btw, haven't checked lately, but I thought the archives were available. I would be sorely disappointed if they are not.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Take the next step and give us the option to go all electronic. My paper copy goes straight to recycle. The electronic versions have been kludgey, but the content has remained excellent -- worth a few extra clicks, but I'll be glad when the clicks go away.

- Bob@intercomtraining.com

January 17, 2013 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I must say, it will take me some time to get used to the new "The New Republic" logo. I don't care for the article embedded in the "New" It makes me think of 1984, the novel, that is.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you to Chris Hughes and here's to The New Republic blazing the way to the return of journalistic greatness in the US. Our press has been major pathetic for at least a decade and it has very negatively impacted our democracy. Thanks for investing in information and ideas.

- smabry03

January 17, 2013 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Blackton. I was kibitzing about "what's an app." It was inspired by the blurbiosity of Hughes's prose, replete with a sensibility that would actually in an ostensibly adult introduction use a breathless word like "amazing." I appreciate the revivifying of the magazine and think it's been very good as the new boss gets his seal legs. I just didn't like this blurby writing.

- basman

January 17, 2013 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(Irony, your posts are actually very cute, english professorish in the best possible way. You're right of course.).

- WandreyCer

January 17, 2013 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"btw, haven't checked lately, but I thought the archives were available. I would be sorely disappointed if they are not." arnon, The link to the TNR Archives used to be at the top of the home page, next to The Book and Reader links. I searched TNR Archives on site and got many articles from the past 3 or 4 years, but there was no order to them and there weren't any older articles. Bummer, man, as we used to say in the Sixties. I loved to read the photocopied PDF-format articles from way back. "My paper copy goes straight to recycle." bob.yeager, I save my TNR paper copy, so I can read the longer articles I like off-line. I still like to read things where I can turn the pages manually. I've only read one e-book in my life. And, unless I want to read something that's no longer in print, it'll be my last.

- magboy47.

January 17, 2013 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

[thanks Wandrey!]

- ironyroad

January 17, 2013 at 7:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

People are making too much of Chris' letter. It was meant to give information and to encourage his troops. It wasn't meant to be a stylistic masterpiece. This is the masthead: Masthead Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Chris Hughes Editor Franklin Foer Literary Editor Leon Wieseltier Executive Editors Rachel Morris, Greg Veis Editorial Director Michael Schaffer Story Editors Ben Crair, Sarah Goldstein News Editor Ryan Kearney Creative Director Dirk Barnett Senior Editors Paul Berman, Isaac Chotiner, Jonathan Cohn, Julia Ioffe, John B. Judis, Adam Kirsch, Alec MacGillis, Timothy Noah, Noam Scheiber, Jason Zengerle National Correspondent Walter Kirn Legal Affairs Jeffrey Rosen Science Editor Judith Shulevitz Executive Editor/The Book Chloe Schama Staff Writers Laura Bennett, Nate Cohn, Lydia DePillis, Eliza Gray, Noreen Malone, Molly Redden, Marc Tracy Deputy Editor Cameron Abadi Assistant Managing Editor Amanda Silverman Films Stanley Kauffmann Art Jed Perl Music David Hajdu Poetry Henri Cole Dance Jennifer Homans Theater Robert Brustein Architecture Sarah Williams Goldhagen Special Correspondents Mariah Blake, Thomas B. Edsall, T.A. Frank, Eliza Griswold, Charles Homans, Ed Kilgore, Joshua Kurlantzick, Walter Shapiro, Gabriel Sherman, Jesse Zwick As long as he keeps most off the people and stays out of their way, I am on board.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Part of my comment was cut off of course. As long as Chris Hughes keeps the current editors or most of them, I have got nothing to worry about.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Magboy try this link for the archives: http://www.tnr.com/archive You can get there by scrawling down to the bottom of the front page.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 8:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw: magboy, I haven't tried the archives in months, so I don't know what's there.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 8:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, ironyroad likes to play professor when he is not playing some care-free ironic beachcomber.

- arnon1

January 17, 2013 at 8:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, arnon. Archives link-page bookmarked!

- magboy47.

January 17, 2013 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ditto the comment re the royal "we" - you just bought TNR, glad you feel connected, now make me feel connected, too. "From readers like Teddy Roosevelt to Herbert Hoover to JFK, The New Republic has always shaped some of the most important conversations in the country." What are you saying? That I should read TNR because of who else reads it? Rather than appeal to reader's vanities, appeal to their intellect, please. And while I'm at it, how about an end to contrarianism for the sake of being a contrarian. It's a bore.

- jangrabrig

January 17, 2013 at 8:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR might want to tell its readers about what relationship, if any, you have with Amazon and the Kindle. I subscribe to several magazines (Yes, TNR is the most important one.) on the Kindle, but none of the magazines seem to know it. I keep getting letters asking me to subscribe at rates that are less than I pay on the Kindle. This is sadly foolish. Mastering online means finding a payment and tracking method through Amazon and iTunes. Is there one? Can you subscribers help you make one?

- dashendorf

January 17, 2013 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"care-free ironic beachcomber" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beachcomber_(pen_name) You never know.

- ironyroad

January 18, 2013 at 12:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is your Wyndham-Lewis related to this Wyndham-Lewis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyndham_Lewis

- arnon1

January 18, 2013 at 12:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kinda hard to believe how critical you guys can be. I won't parse the new guy's missive, because I think that's just silly. I really care about this magazine and I want it to stay above water. I'm delighted that someone has assumed the task of staying the course. There will be some glitches along the way, and we will all have some nit-picking to do. But geez, give the guy a chance. Unless you'd prefer to bag the whole thing and get your news from People magazine. Or (ghack) Time.

- elmont

January 18, 2013 at 2:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is a 'promotional text,' and what would one expect from the owner and CEO of a company." Maybe, though not from the publisher and editor-in-chief of The New Republic. I guess the polite thing to do would have been to say, "Welcome, thanks for buying the magazine, good luck!" I don't mean to make too much of it, but, like basman, I was put off by the "sensibility" of the blurb, with its breathless inanity, with a prose style and depth redolent of middle school book reports, even given its promotional purpose and context. TNR has a great tradition of ornery truth-telling, and, sorry, the truth is that this comes off as lacking intellectual sophistication. Not a great sign, okay? I'm perfectly willing to "give the guy a chance" in every way and I'm hardly on the verge of giving up my subscription. I was just a bit taken aback, that's all.

- JakeH

January 18, 2013 at 3:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Phrase of the thread: "ornery truth-telling." Maybe it's just me but I'd be a little struck by (consistent with " amazing") the drift to ephemera. To wit: see immediately above, bang, bang, bang: 1. Baudrillard and babes at... 2. Arnold Schwarzenegger: the one man brand... 3. ...celebrity Scientologists... Scientology...

- basman

January 18, 2013 at 3:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Finally, basman points to a substantive problem. Lately many of the articles have had a kind of "Vanity Fair" flavor to them which is not to my liking. But then I wasn't that interested in the all the heavy economic articles either. What I like the most is the Books and Arts section and the occasional article about foreign affairs. Unlike most people here I miss Martin Peretz. By now he would have had some article on the hostage crises in Algeria which some of you would have called "racist" but would have pointed out the truth: a government that sets out to rescue people and kills of them in the process isn't a government that cares about people's lives. That and the grandiose claims made by the Algerians about how they rescued most hostages calls froth something derisive or worse. ( A cultural pathology is at work in Algeria) But I doubt there will be such an article here soon" more's the pity.

- arnon1

January 18, 2013 at 7:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the other hand there are some very interesting articles in the Book section. Too bad they don't allow people to comments and converse there.

- arnon1

January 18, 2013 at 7:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm concerned that there seems to be less and less serious political analysis and more and more pop culture fluff, as basman also noticed. I hope that's not what's meant by "making our content richer, deeper, and more diverse."

- BillW

January 18, 2013 at 7:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And many of the political articles seem to be focused more on personalities than on policy.

- BillW

January 18, 2013 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope this doesn't mean that the print version is going the same way as Newsweek. DonMc

- NR138704

January 18, 2013 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, despite the fairly unusual surname, it appears that D.B Wyndham-Lewis (Beachcomber) was no relation to Percy Wyndham-Lewis, although people used to regularly confuse the two (and they were pretty close in age, coincidentally enough).

- ironyroad

January 18, 2013 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I will say -- coming back to the main theme -- that it surely happens now and then that an imaginative and even inspiring editor is, at the same time, a clunky and unfocused writer. Jan Wenner and Rolling Stone in its heyday make up evidence item #1 on that. And apart from all that I, too, am very glad that Chris Hughes has picked up the baton.

- ironyroad

January 18, 2013 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, hear, hear on the book section. From the start, I found their no-comment policy misguided, based on a stereotype of internet commenters that I like to think doesn't apply to us fine folks.

- JakeH

January 18, 2013 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've never underwood that no comment policy for the book section as if somehow the inevitable froth and spittle of some thread comments demean the main essay, a rationale, if that's it, which makes no sense two me for among at least two reasons: 1. So much of the thread comment is superb, often a match for the main essay; and 2. the quality of the main essays stand or fall on their own merit, independent of the threads they spawn. If that's not the rationale, I'd like to understand what it is.

- basman

January 18, 2013 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chris Hughes, best of luck to you and the team.

- seattleeng

January 18, 2013 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree about the pop culture. There are plenty of magazines publishing stuff about Arnold in his star persona, Tom Cruise, various TV fluff shows; we need magazines that deal with serious art and serious issues. The New Yorker has some great stuff. Why not aim higher instead of lower? Personally I have absolutely zero interest in Simon Cowell, period, but a lot of interest in Rembrandt, de Kooning, the Depression especially since we seem to be on the verge of one; the rise of violence in hard times (ditto) and how that affects art and of course women and women artists and writers; and while I'm on the subject what ever happened to the NEA? Victim of the deficit hawks or the far right or both? We (artists and students of art) need some moral support as well as actual support and we're not getting in the sugar coated, corporate-sponsored world so PLEASE don't make me eat sugar here.

- Sophia

January 18, 2013 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia makes some very good points, but I consider TNR of much higher quality than the New Yorker. I hope it stays that way.

- arnon1

January 18, 2013 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia makes some very good points, but I consider TNR of much higher quality than the New Yorker. I hope it stays that way.

- arnon1

January 18, 2013 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... that it surely happens now and then that an imaginative and even inspiring editor is, at the same time, a clunky and unfocused writer. Jan Wenner and Rolling Stone in its heyday make up evidence item #1 on that..." In a gifted writer who has deep thoughts and is in love with language, there would be something in all that clunkiness that attracts, compels attention, and engages the mind of the reader. I find none of that in this editorial: full of cliches and fawning upon its readers. "Tailored for a smart, curious and socially aware audience..." ?? What does that mean?and how genuine is the sentiment? And why would a magazine want to be "tailored" to anybody? I often search the archives. I once found an article by Virginia Woolf about Jane Austen! TNR today hardly seems the magazine where you could find such pearls defining an age anymore. Time to re-read Orwell's "Politics and the English language".

- Noga

January 18, 2013 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Btw, good long, long article in New Yorker by David Remnick on Isaeli politics and the coalescing of the hard right, focusing on Bennett, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/21/130121fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all

- basman

January 18, 2013 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Has anyone seen this? I don't how true it is. "Michael Kinsley, who edited The New Republic for 20 years, is returning to the magazine in January as editor-at-large." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/michael-kinsley-returns-new-republic-tnr-relaunch_n_2340795.html The article is dated 12/21/2012

- arnon1

January 18, 2013 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is a general degradation in journalistic quality, across the board. So it hardly surprises that the New Yorker is no longer the best magazine around. I'm wondering whether it is one of the results of the Internet, bloggery and message boards that makes these papers want to compete for attention by lowering the standards, and appealing to populist sentiments rather than maintain high intellectual integrity. It's as if journalists who do not come out and declare their politics to be this or that, consider it a risk of not being taken seriously, or reaping the rewards of the profession. Something is very wrong. And depressing.

- Noga

January 18, 2013 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I too protested articles on Scientology but, to be fair to TNR, both the New York Times Book review http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/books/review/going-clear-lawrence-wrights-book-on-scientology.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 and The Nation have also had reviews of books on Scientology.

- arnon1

January 18, 2013 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Hughes is not really impressing me much these days. TNR is not delivering much and I have been spending less time with this site. He glides over their election analysis in his brief piece here. 90% of that stuff was not worth reading and added no value to TNR. And it exposed a shift leftward at TNR. I have gone back to reading my TNR fortnightly and am enjoying that much more. The back of the book has some great stuff and those longer peices are easier to read moving around from the kitchen table to the sofa and taking it in. The magazine is a little thin, but it is well written. Count me among the skeptics regarding the new platform here. TNR has not been able to start a conversation here and they don't have enough content to compete with the larger sites. Formatting for an iPad may help a bit, but it doesn't change the direction. Perhaps my disappointments are more to do with their losses than their future. Mr. Peretz, as much as I disagreed with him, was a substantial loss of an independent voice. TNR has been very thin on events around the world. Both in reporting and editorial content. I don't see that improving much. The list of other writers lost is long and predates the Hughes era. Let's be honest here. Jon Cohn and Tim Noah are not the two guys to carry a website. Noah's a cast away looking for a home, and Cohn types up his pieces in his Cheerleader outfit. I doubt any other publication would put these two on a roster of great journalists. I knew what TNR was doing 10 years ago. They had a place and beliefs. Now they seem to provoke or grandstand. I don't see the purpose these days.

- CRS9TNR

January 19, 2013 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat try this, a book you'd particularly enjoy, Crazy Heart by Thomas Cobb, on which the movie is quite closely based. Strong punchy prose, great exposition of character, and generally compelling accessible reading. I don't read much fiction these days, but zis eez ah playzeer, gets incredibly right and right inside a certain type of near totally bust out guy always buoyed by his incipient musicianship.

- basman

January 19, 2013 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat -- you said what I and a few others have been saying, but oh so much more pithily!

- ironyroad

January 20, 2013 at 12:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat, Irony, with all allowances for time zone differences, here's a fun Sunday afternoon for us. Let's all separately rewrite Hughes's letter and submit our copies to each other for contrast and comparison complete with each of our copious marginalia. I'm in, right after I swallow razor blades between 1:15 to 1:39 p.m., EST, the only time that really matters. What say you? P.S. Malahat yesterday afternoon I saw at the Big Smoke's Pilot Tavern Bernie Senensky, Pat Labarbera and Dave Young, with a drummer I didn't know but who sounded good to me. I think these guys are just great musicians. And when world famous guys like Joshua Redman, say, hit town, I can't see his saxophony being any better than the likes of Labarbera or Mike Murley or Phil Dwyer or West Coast's P.J. Perry and other formost Canadian players. And no cover at the Pilot compared to spending hundreds of dollars for tickets for some drecky costumed musicals at some tricked out theatre. I've never understood that complete inversion of what's truly good and what counts in the public mind as good.

- basman

January 20, 2013 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hmmm...... WSJ.Com has an article today that magazines are going digital and the digital subscription cost more than the discounted print editions. Wonder if Mr. Hughes free access to the new application will be free very long. My suspicion is that the free access will be about 30 days and then we'll pay more. Just wish they were up front about this stuff. The people that loce TNR are us. We don't mind paying for this magazine. I've subscribed for 25 years now. Instead on Jan 28th we'll get a surprise. Pretty sure we'll have to provide an Apple iTunes account for them to bill us when the free access runs out. Maybe it will be an upgrade and we'll get continued access under our subscription. But with the way the magazine business is going these days. color me a bit skeptical.

- CRS9TNR

January 20, 2013 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know what changes will take place and CR may be right. I assume that TNR web site will look more like Tabletmag (a Jewish website that isn't always to my taste. Lots of fluffy stuff there but also some good articles too, once in a while. One of their writers was hired by TNR recently. Fluff seems to be the rule these days. Even the NY Times has lots of articles that in the "good old days" would have been rejected without thinking twice. They have gone into the business of giving advice. It takes me about fifteen minutes to half an hour these days to go through that paper. Used to take me at least an hour and a half. I am not complaining since it leaves me more time for serious literature and the exciting fluff novels of centuries ago Fenimore Cooper, Tobias Smollett, etc.

- arnon1

January 20, 2013 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And the award for pith goes to my friend Sir Malahat: to wit: ...the willingness to focus on content rather than fame is what distinguishes an aficionado from a snob.... Pretty good and together with your first, which got an appropriate plaudit, you be on your own good roll, Sir!

- basman

January 20, 2013 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The first issue of the newly designed magazine is disappointing in may ways, but the saddest part of all is the demotion of Stanley Kauffmann. The books and arts part of the magazine would begin with "Kauffmann on Films," which was, year in and year out (decade in and decade out) the best part of the magazine. The "Film" area has been bumped to the end of the arts area, and instead of Kauffmann on film we get David Thomson writing about a TV show. Thomson might be a reasonable replacement for Kauffmann when the time comes -- but if the magazine is dumping Kauffmann the fact should at least be acknowledged. I've put up with TNR's support for so many odious wars, for its nurturing so many conservative voices, for its helping to block health care reform for a generation, for its earlier ghastly makeovers, for its cutting back from 48 to 20 issues a year, because it was where Stanley Kauffmann's film criticism could be found.

- tross

January 27, 2013 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close