A decade later

It's difficult to believe that it's been 10 years since 9/11.

The Times has an excellent round-up of first-hand experiences from that day, as well as a round-up of all the implications of the attacks (in literature, on our economy, in the Arab world, etc.)

Of course, every publication did something this week to memorialize that horrible day.

The New Yorker's coverage was particularly heartbreaking. The great George Packer (The Assassins' Gate) and the great Adam Gopnik (Paris to the Moon) wrote twin pieces about American erosion in the past 10 years (how veterans came back from Iraq and Afghanistan with virtually zero prospects of getting a job, and a general decline-of-the-west article, respectively) that both left this schlub feeling depressed -- particularly Packer's. (Unfortunately, the articles are firewalled.)

New York magazine had an interesting idea to treat the issue as a 9/11 encyclopedia. Entries start at Abbottabad and end at Zazi, Najibullah (the failed, homegrown terrorist) with everything from "Survivor, Last Pulled Out" to "Freedom Fries" in between.

The Post has a huge tribute issue out today -- but earlier in the week, your humble correspondent got to do one of the more upbeat stories: How the Financial District rebounded after everyone thought it was as good as dead. And, indeed, (with some massive hiccups along the way which I didn't have space to get into) it did just that.

And, perhaps, I should leave it there.

How long was somebody waiting to use that headline?

The New Yorker''s Mike Peed has a very interesting piece about the international banana crisis.

Apparently, the Cavendish banana faces a deadly fungus that threatens to wipe out the world banana supply.

So... how long was someone waiting to use the headline "We Have No Bananas"?

Marvelous Malcolm

Is Janet Malcolm the greatest American writer alive?

I sometimes think so.

No, I don't think Malcolm has ever produced anything as interesting as, say, My Life as a Man or American Pastoral. But if you look at Philip Roth's last three books, they look like a stab at former glory rather than something original and relevant. The themes seem slightly stale. The writing is a lot flabbier than it used to be.

The same could probably be said of Toni Morrison and E.L. Doctorow and many of our other great writers. It's not their fault; sometimes you've said what you needed to say.

But there are a few writers who seem to get better with age. And if you look at Malcolm's piece in the New Yorker this week (subscription required) about the trial of Mazoltuv Borukhova, you see a writer whose talents have not diminished at all. If anything, they've gotten stronger.

I realize, it's a little unfair bunching these writers in together. Fiction is a very different animal than journalism. But when the voice is as good as Malcolm's (when what she has to say feels so urgent and exciting) it's irresistible pairing the two.

The Borukhova trial, in case you haven't heard about it, was a case of a Queens doctor and Orthodox Bukharan Jew, who was accused of having her husband murdered in order to get custody of their four year old daughter.

After reading the piece, I still have no idea if the woman was innocent or guilty. I have no idea whether her husband was a monster or a saint. But I certainly think it's possible that she's innocent. It's very possible that she's guilty -- but her husband deserved it. And I can also see it as an instance in which every accusation leveled against Borukhova is correct, and that she's where she ought to be.

But whether she's innocent or guilty, it also seems obvious to me that she did not have a fair trial.

And the innocence or guilt in this case seem besides the point. What Malcolm does which is so remarkable is her unpacking of everything that happens in a trial; she goes through the motions of a trial -- its expectations, its theater, its players -- with such an eye for detail that she really makes you rethink everything. Every action deserves second guessing. Every actor is slightly different than you thought he or she was.

What Malcolm's doing is what a great artist like Roth or Morrison or Doctorow is supposed to do: She's offering a different perspective.

It really is a treat. Hats off to you, Miss Malcolm. I will always remain a devoted follower!

An unlikely stud

Is it me, or is the uber-schlub Jeffrey Toobin the most unlikely stud ever?

But, apparently, our Harvard educated New Yorker legal correspondent (and the author of The Nine, which is a truly excellent book about the Supreme Court) is getting a little action on the side, according to my esteemed friends at Page Six. There is suspicion that he is the father of an out-of-wedlock love child, despite the fact that he is married, with other kids.

Well, Jeffrey, I cannot condone that kind of behavior.

But, I have to admit, you are doing great things for our rep. (I mean, this is a really, really unlikely Page Six item. You beat out freakin' Lindsay Lohan as today's lead item!) So, on behalf of the other schlubs, I'm just going to keep quiet and hope this redounds to our collective credit.

Ya think?

"There was something in us -- although I don't like to admit it -- something of the overearnest, you know?"

-- Bonnie Klein, mother of Naomi Klein in Larissa MacFarquah's profile in this week's New Yorker.

Yes, we know.

Nevertheless, an interesting article. MacFarquah compares her to the 2008 manifestation of Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky (two people I, for one, would rather not be compared to). But Klein doesn't come off sounding like too much of a nut here.

But, before falling for Klein, I would recommend a more sober look. Specifically, Jonathan Chait's review of The Shock Doctrine which appeared in the New Republic over the summer.

Full Disclosure: I cannot honestly defend or denounce Miss Klein; The Shock Doctrine is sitting in my house, waiting for a read, but I have not gotten to it yet.

Holy smokes

I'm a little late getting to this, but David Samuels had a fairly interesting article on the medical marijuana movement in California in the New Yorker last week.

I would like to offer two points of criticism:

1) When will the New Yorker publish a piece that had a funny lede, for chrissakes! (This is a subject that begs for a snappy, tabloid lede... Instead he went with one of those rambling, New Yorker ledes. C'mon, David. You're better than that!)

2) While certainly the medical marijuana dispensers are abused by people who don't have real medical problems (or maybe do, but prefer weed to other remedies because weed is more fun), I sort of wish Samuels spoke a little about the people who are chronically in pain and for whom marijuana is their best (or their only) remedy. Medical marijuana is really not about recreation. There are people who need this and who are denied it by a truly pointless federal statute. (Of course, I believe marijuana should be legalized in general -- but I know that that's not in the cards for the near future.)

The article makes it sound as if the only people who are ever punished in California are the dealers and the mules. Not true! Chronically ill people -- who are operating in good faith -- are just as punished by the actions of the D.E.A. as anyone else is. Take, say, the case of Angel Raich, someone who would spend the rest of their life in agonizing pain if not for cannabis. The government's response? Tough shit.

I sort of wish that side of the argument was expanded.

Calculating the odds

An editor of mine and I were discussing the possibility of a New Yorker apology for the terrorist-fist-bump cover.

"I've been talking to a bunch of friends about this," he said. "They were all so sure that the New Yorker would issue an apology. I said, 'I'll give you three-to-one odds that they won't issue an apology... but you'll have to bet me like $5,000.'"

I tend to agree. An apology is extremely unlikely. There might (as my editor pointed out) be some quiet apologies to advertisers. Maybe even an off-the-record phone call to David Axlerod. (Or even the candidate himself.) But a public apology? I don't think so. (Especially since the Obama campaign isn't really calling for one.)

But it any one has five grand that they'd like to bet with, email maxgrosstheauthor@gmail.com, and I'll help broker this bet.

PS - Cover aside (which I didn't particularly care for) it's a pretty good issue. Ryan Lizza has an interesting piece on how Obama learned to be a political street fighter in Chicago. (I always knew, messianic fantasies aside, the man was incredibly shrewd. You don't take on -- and beat! -- the most calculating political machine in the Democratic party -- the Clintons -- without political street smarts.) And my old college pal, Ben Wallace-Wells, has a great theory-of-everything science piece. (Which I don't see online.)

That cover....

When the new New Yorker came out today I greeted all this controversy swirling around it with a shrug.

It's really not such a big deal. (Of course, one person I spoke to today said, "I'm canceling my New Yorker subscription.") It's pretty obviously a joke. It wouldn't be that over-the-top if it wasn't anything but a joke. All the rest is commentary. (And, besides, The New Yorker is free to do whatever it likes.)

However, I will say one thing in defense of those who were outraged: It wasn't a particularly funny joke. (And that's sort of key to any joke.) What was the point? I suppose you could say that the point was, "Look how ridiculous it is to think that the Obama family is some fist-bumping-terrorist-worshipping-Angela-Davis-emulating-bunch-of-terrorists."

Well, I knew that was ridiculous before I saw The New Yorker...