FashionSnob, Obamarama

The New Yorker Keeps “Precious” and “The Widowmaker” Under Wraps

Via Jezebel

Advertisements
Standard

14 thoughts on “The New Yorker Keeps “Precious” and “The Widowmaker” Under Wraps

  1. Sabrina says:

    So is this some lame ass attempt at portraying our First Lady as a lady and not the gun toting fist bumping terrorist on their last Michelle/Barack Obama cover? They obviously did not believe she would be First Lady or they would not have done anything so disrespectful. Covered arms or not I could care less what the New Yorker publishes anymore.

  2. That fist bumping cover was funny as hell. It was satire–Mencken/Twain-esque. It was designed to make FUN of the people who hated Michelle and Barack, or whipped up the very stereotypes and lies illustrated on the cover. To this day I have no clue why some people don’t get that. Political correctness run amok? Over sensitivity? Not really. I think it’s because people dont read or study be it creative writing or journalislm, beyond their own comfort zone these days, so they don’t have experience in dealing with ironic or satirical humor.

  3. moja31 says:

    @chris chambers: or it’s because that point could have been made in a much clearer (and funnier) way; you know if they’d actually depicted the people they purported to mock, or if the content of the magazine had actually expanded on the commentary of the cover, rather than just relying on their liberal cred and assuming that the point had been made (ginning up some sales in a dying industry, with a controversy they could have seen coming a mile away was an added bonus of course). just because some people thought the cover failed, even if they understood the intent; doesn’t mean that they don’t "get" satire, or aren’t enlightened enough to have been exposed to similar attempts, as your condescension suggests.

  4. LaDonna says:

    I guess the rest of us are just a bunch of uneducated hicks compared to Chris Chambers. So kind of you to explain satire to us.

  5. Christina says:

    Chris, putting down people doesn’t help your point. There are many jokes and satirical comments I "get," but don’t think they’re funny. The New Yorker cover was an example of that. When you have to explain your jokes time and again? When you have to rely on people knowing what the New Yorker is to make your point? Then maybe it’s time to look at yourself and not your audience.If you really have NO clue why people had a problem with the cover, you’re engaging in the same kind of lazy thinking the New Yorker was (except, of course, I think they meant to provoke controversy, but had to backtrack with the s— really hit the fan)All that said, their post-election cover was quite lovely.http://www.chicagotypewriter.net/2008/11/17/moon-over-lincoln-memorial/

  6. ezparz says:

    Where’s Michelle’s signature bare arms? Nice to see the crowd of white people looking at her though. Aren’t we all.

  7. Erika M says:

    I like the first outfit that animated Michelle is wearing, pretty cute. I wonder why all the people in the audience are White. Thoughts?

  8. The New Yorker did not have to explain their cover, because it was obvious from the start that it was satire; and if that wasn’t enough the title of the image where the First Lady was fist bumping the President was a clear indication that it was satire, and anyone who read the New Yorker regularly knew that the title is always on the index page. That entire incident was people being over sensitive and just leaping to conclusions. Of course not taking into account that The New Yorker is one of the most progressive literary magazines in the country, not to mention a magazine that gave one of best endorsement of the President to date. As for this cover, I think the artist that made this image was still in the mindset of the conventional view of first ladies, who typically cover their arms. And while the First Lady might like to go bare sleeve it doesn’t mean artist portraying her must also go sleeveless.

  9. Christina says:

    I bet the New Yorker wishes it could take that cover back. It wasn’t about a whole bunch of people being oversensitive. Again, just saying something is satire doesn’t mean that everyone has to like it. But whatever, it’s months ago and this is an old battle to refight.

  10. Gem says:

    None of the controversy has stopped Michelle from reading the New Yorker as she told People magazine a few weeks ago "I read more magazines. The New Yorker is one of my big, sort of relaxing reads.”

  11. Tai Pad Vam says:

    @ Chris Chambers, well written.@ J. Clarence, well writen. I noticed how they totally covered her arms and even painted gloves on her! LOL!I found this website and was attracted to it because of the name, The Black Snob. Lov it! Yeah I know it’s shallow, but I am a snob! When I found this site I felt like the little bee girl in the Blind Melon video. Moreover, I am beginning to feel like this site is ran by and patronised mostly by men haters. I read the blogs and a lot of you guys are overtly sensitive to the point of being irrational. My fingers are crossed…..Maybe I should pray for you to win the Lotto?!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s