Would you care to write a new piece about what’s currently going on in the world of literary magazines, or an update to this piece? I’d love to know about the new big players, and hear about what’s developed with the ones you looked at in 2005.

Would you care to write a new piece about what’s currently going on in the world of literary magazines, or an update to this piece? I’d love to know about the new big players, and hear about what’s developed with the ones you looked at in 2005.

sanneh mentions hip hop as the most conspicuous absence in the issue. but i think the believer would have done well to include some classical music, a genre that kids like me know very little about. as a curious, savvy reader–one who fits right into the believer’s demographic–i find it kind of boring to read umpteen articles about how aimee man started her own record label.

sanneh mentions hip hop as the most conspicuous absence in the issue. but i think the believer would have done well to include some classical music, a genre that kids like me know very little about. as a curious, savvy reader–one who fits right into the believer’s demographic–i find it kind of boring to read umpteen articles about how aimee man started her own record label.

Pollack’s article is key to understanding two paths McSweeney’s personalities tend to take: one (Pollack’s) heads towards irredeemable irony, the other towards a kind of morally thoughtful fun. It’s like the difference between hanging out with Michael Moore and Jon Stewart. Or I’d imagine.

Here’s the Times’ review of the Believer music issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/arts/music/23sann.html?8hpib

That was the first issue of the Believer I’d read. And boy, is it ever easy to read. And I don’t know if this is how the Believer always does it, but putting the table of contents on the back cover is wicked smart. Or wicked cute, at least. All journals leave the back cover blank; most magazines put a back cover ad there. But having the TOC there made it so inviting to look through the book if you otherwise wouldn’t.

. . .

And now that I’ve read the nytimes piece on the Believer music issue, I want to agree with Sanneh’s criticism that the issue is myopic in its chosen subjects. It always bothered me, in a white-man’s-guilt kind of way, that the music I like tends to be so pale, and same for the writing I like. That’s come together in the Believer. But, then again, the Believer knows it’s audience—it could just as easily say, “Yep, you’re right, we only deal with white alt/indie musicians. But you know what . . . let the Times cover classical and the Village Voice hip-hop and Rolling Stone pop—they’re better at it and better-connected than we would be.” Call it comparative advantage. It’s not like people expect the Believer is going to be their sole source of music recommendations, so why be diverse? Stick to your strengths.

Pollack’s article is key to understanding two paths McSweeney’s personalities tend to take: one (Pollack’s) heads towards irredeemable irony, the other towards a kind of morally thoughtful fun. It’s like the difference between hanging out with Michael Moore and Jon Stewart. Or I’d imagine.

Here’s the Times’ review of the Believer music issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/arts/music/23sann.html?8hpib

That was the first issue of the Believer I’d read. And boy, is it ever easy to read. And I don’t know if this is how the Believer always does it, but putting the table of contents on the back cover is wicked smart. Or wicked cute, at least. All journals leave the back cover blank; most magazines put a back cover ad there. But having the TOC there made it so inviting to look through the book if you otherwise wouldn’t.

. . .

And now that I’ve read the nytimes piece on the Believer music issue, I want to agree with Sanneh’s criticism that the issue is myopic in its chosen subjects. It always bothered me, in a white-man’s-guilt kind of way, that the music I like tends to be so pale, and same for the writing I like. That’s come together in the Believer. But, then again, the Believer knows it’s audience—it could just as easily say, “Yep, you’re right, we only deal with white alt/indie musicians. But you know what . . . let the Times cover classical and the Village Voice hip-hop and Rolling Stone pop—they’re better at it and better-connected than we would be.” Call it comparative advantage. It’s not like people expect the Believer is going to be their sole source of music recommendations, so why be diverse? Stick to your strengths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/review/19POLLACK.html

the second is kelefa sanneh’s review of the recent music issue from the believer, mcsweeney’s stepchild. it’s on the front page now. i don’t feel like finding the url.

you guys are doing some good stuff here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/review/19POLLACK.html

the second is kelefa sanneh’s review of the recent music issue from the believer, mcsweeney’s stepchild. it’s on the front page now. i don’t feel like finding the url.

you guys are doing some good stuff here.