Emdashes—Modern Times Between the Lines
The Basics:
About Emdashes | Email us
Ask the Librarians
Best of Emdashes: Hit Parade
A Web Comic: The Wavy Rule
Features & Columns:
Headline Shooter
On the Spot
Looked Into
Sempé Fi: Cover Art
I Say It's Wednesday, and I Say the Hell With It
Filed under: Headline Shooter Tagged: ads, books, Canada, cartoons, Charles Addams, Edward Sorel
Ed Sorel reviews the new Charles Addams bio by Linda H. Davis (for the New York Observer), and what do you know, so do I (for Newsday). It’s called Charles Addams: A Cartoonist’s Life, and the illustrations alone are worth the price. Later: Janet Maslin is getting in on the action and reviewing it, too (for the NYT, natch).
Film Forum now has a podcast.
I would never bash a Canadian if I could avoid it, but this CBC commentator must have been living on Mars since 1925 to write these words:I opened a recent New Yorker, a men’s magazine whose front section is annoyingly insular and almost hick and whose back half has some good reporting. Staring at me was Steven Spielberg, a 59-year-old man in a baseball cap, who makes movies for the child in every adult. He was shilling for the Gap. “Gap is collaborating with (Product) Red® and the world’s most iconic brands to help eliminate AIDS in Africa.”Also, it really says “T-shirt top”? That seems unlikely.
Readers were told that if they bought a “Gap (Product) Red® item, half the profits will go directly” to the AIDS fight. Then came 28 Gap ads in a 97-page magazine with slogans including “Can a T-shirt top change the world?”
Comments
With whatever (faint) praise I could summon for Mallick’s years at the Globe & Mail, I can’t see any more obvious thrust behind this column than an unerringly moronic fumbling at pop relevance. It pains me to be a hater, but I think she was reaching here for the pouting, hip-wiggling strut more in keeping with MySpace than the CBC, let alone a certain men’s magazine.
The Canadians are a pox, that much is clear.
Hey! Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! Some of my best friends are Canadian…including me!
I’m quite surprised that Mallick would write such idiotic comments regarding the New Yorker; I’ve usually enjoyed her stuff in the past.
Mea culpa!
Oh, I love all things Canadian, don’t get me wrong. That’s why it hurts to call out one of our northern friends for infelicitous phrasing. But “men’s magazine…almost hick” just pushed me too far!
I was actually responding to Jeff’s comment about us Canucks being a pox.
I know you love us. You really love us!!
Btw, Emily, your new blog is the bee’s knees. Fantabulous. I’m overwhelmed with its wonderfulness, really. Congrats!
Aw, thanks! I blush! I’ll tell the (brilliant) designers, my co-captains, too.
Patricia! Mea culpa. I do love Canadians. Being one, I am congenitally unable to do otherwise. ;)
I was actually attempting a little inside baseball with Emily, whose fond regard for Canadians is—what can I say—a credit to her worldly good sense!
Worldly, perhaps. Good sense, questionable!
O, Canada: my spiritual home, almost my native land.
Incidentally, for any fellow html dorks, it looks like you have to do a non-breaking space symbol if you want to do line breaks in the comments—a little Glitche Gumee trivia for you. I’m going to try it now.
It works!
I have a very low opinion of Mallick, so I can’t really credit her for the buried brilliance in this series of sentences. But it can easily be metabolized, for example, into fine, if grossly-overdone blog comedy, something like this but, you know, better:
I opened a recent New Yorker (a men’s magazine published in New York), and staring at me was Steven Spielberg, a 59-year-old man in a baseball cap. He makes movies for the child in every adult, and his latest venture is an effort to end AIDS in Africa by selling Gap t-shirts.
Actually the best part is “a 59-year old man in a baseball cap”. I can probably guess what Mallick was getting at, but as a description for Steven Spielberg (Steven Spielberg: A fifty-nine-year-old man in a baseball cap.) Or, better, on its own, it’s such a precisely ambiguous sentence. I don’t really know what it means, it just stands there plaintively: is it glassily looking at a subway map, or standing mute, in a mall, in Bermuda shorts ?
No probs, Jeff. Sorry for the misunderstanding. And thanks for the Glitche Gumee trivia, Emily!