Dara writes:
Just an update that I am now an assistant editor at COMMENTARY magazine. I work on the magazine's blog, contentions.
In addition to editing, sometimes I write.
Check it out!
Viewing entries in
Magazines
Dara writes:
I enjoy reading food magazines, and have regularly bought Gourmet and Food & Wine in the past. I treat these a little as I do Vogue or Bazaar, as voyeurism. Though I do actually cook, and while I am inclined to go to the market and purchase Italian olive oil, buying Dolce and Gabbana is not a habit.
Recently I picked up Bon Appetit. The magazine is bright and lively, but a bit less interesting to someone who has spent a lot of time in the kitchen. In the January issue of Bon Appetit, "taste combinations" were trumpeted as the new thing, but caramel and fleur de sel is so two years ago! In the February issue, one of the first pages featured a recipe for "beef and dark beer chili." Maybe it's because I don't like chili, period, but that version sounds particularly repellent, not to mention expell-ent.
Expanding from food, BA mentioned that if you want to head to the "hippest perfumer in New York," head to Bond Street. Actually, there are now shops in NYC where one can have perfume created in the shop especially for oneself and these custom-design shops, such as the Christopher Brosius Studio in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, are definitely the next big thing.
The out-of-date advice and outre food photographs make me question the magazine--as have others before me, such as this blogger who assails BA for completely fouling up on their advice about sushi in Los Angeles.
Though I shouldn't have been, I was surprised to find A.O. Scott, in this weekend's New York Times Magazine, praising as rebellious two literary journals that couldn't be more establishment. I read and admire aspects of The Believer and n + 1, but I wouldn't define them as detached from the media machine, which is how Scott portrays them.
Both magazines are firmly entrenched, The Believer in the irreverent McSweeney's empire, n + 1 in the old boys network that originates in Harvard Yard. While Scott is pretty up front about the editors' affinities, he's less forthright about his own.
Scott characterizes the editors' mission as instigating discussion about cultural artifacts because they matter, not because they're popular. He seems to appreciate serendipity and denounce synergy when it comes to what we consume. In a Scottian utopia, I would read a book because I stumbled upon it on a step at a Carroll Street stoop sale, not because I marched purposefully to Barnes and Noble after learning Liev Schreiber directed the movie version. In this world we would live unsullied by press people, Hollywood tie-ins, well-connected agents...
...or would we? Two-thirds of the way through his call for artistic independence, Scott discloses that the same person reps him and an n + 1 editor, whose book Random House has just published. Oddly enough, the book received top billing in the review of, coincidentally, Scott's place of employ. And did I mention Scott Rudin has purchased the movie rights?
Next time Scott runs away to join the circus, he might want to carry more than a little handkerchief filled with lapsong suchong tea leaves tied to the end of a stick.
Elvis Mitchell, where are you?