Best of Emdashes: Hit Parade
A Web Comic: The Wavy Rule
Before it moved to The New Yorker:
Ask the Librarians archive
About Emdashes | Email us
Features & Columns:
Headline Shooter
On the Spot
Looked Into
…and here’s the review. Note that I do not make light of the breast cancer diagnosis of one author’s girlfriend, which is more than the Times Book Review can say. Isn’t it odd that Jeopardy! winner-loser-winner Bob Harris has the same name as the hero of Lost in Translation? Or was that on purpose, Sofia? Should we be reading something into this about the search for answers in a Babel of mixed signals and missed connections?
Hello! We're a small band of media enthusiasts, culture addicts, and journalists based in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Emdashes, formerly a New Yorker fan site, is our collection of conversations—mostly civilized—about magazines, movies, politics, design, punctuation, and other things that stir us.
You'd like to know more about the writers and artists and what our column titles mean? We live to serve!
We welcome tips, questions, comments, and corrections, and are always on the lookout for ardent, obsessive new contributors. Click here to email us.
We host occasional book giveaways. Publishers, please email us for our postal address.
Dashes, some say, “are particularly useful in a sentence that is long and complex.” Emdashes—like an em dash itself—provides a thoughtful pause amid the hubbub.
Emdashes, founded in 2004, is written and drawn by Emily Gordon, Martin Schneider, Pollux, Jonathan Taylor, and Benjamin Chambers, as well as occasional guest contributors. All posts before October 2008 are by Emily Gordon.
The site was designed by House of Pretty with illustrations by Jesse R. Ewing.
Additional drawings are by Carolita Johnson and Pollux (author of our web comic, "The Wavy Rule"). The Emdashes pencil logo is by Jennifer Hadley, based on a 1943 Dorothy Gray ad.
Everything you tell or send us is off the record unless we ask for your permission to use it.
Comments
I’m sure he’s knowingly engaging the well, yeah reaction, but does it really go far enough ? Does he ever come to terms with the realization that formulating your thoughts on these rather untrivial subjects ‘in the form of a question’ (or developing mnemonics for them) is silly to the point of injustice ? Doesn’t the tenor here really communicate, textually, Jennings’ Mormon placidity, which is so immediately apparent and unsettling onscreen?
(I can’t help but think of Dickens’ Mr Gradgrind whenever such plentiful ladels of Facts are distributed, as in Jeopardy.)