Contrary to its dry and stodgy reputation among those who have never picked up a copy, the New Yorker is eminently engaging and readable. The "New Yorker Style" seems to be one of continuous vivid description- but always to serve the subject. It is like the "NPR: All Things Considered" of print. Indeed, for me, the magazine's ever varied subject matter (no subject is out of bounds for the magazine- as long as it can be presented in an interesting fashion) is often beside the point. A typical article gives a such rich sense of persona and place that makes reading on any topic- whether it be an inside look at a noted political figure or the recent turmoil in Zimbabwe or a trip inside the head of a noted film director (stuff that would hardly interest me otherwise)- a sensual delight. Put another way, one thing all New Yorker writers seem to have in common is an exceptional gift for prose.

This is not to say that the magazine is all style and no substance. On the contrary, the New Yorker frequently throws a very big hat into the ring of popular discourse on a wide range of topics. Noted New Yorker writers will frequently pop up on talking-heads shows defending their controversial, yet compelling, assertions.

The New Yorker is often in depth- with very little fluff space- that, with minimal page real estate eaten up by graphic designer fill- articles often run to great length. On the other hand, those who are in the mood for a bite sized morsel can read the cartoons, arts reviews at the back of the magazine, or, my favorite part- the Talk of the Town- a half dozen or so slices-of-life features with range from the oddball to the frightening.

Writers such as Jeffrey Toobin are often amazingly prescient in their early analysis of various rising luminaries on the political and cultural scene. One reason to hold on to old copies of the magazine is have the ability to go back again and see how much of the political behavior of, say, Dick Cheney, had been foretold by his earlier actions.

The New Yorker is also unpretentious. While many articles (and indeed cartoons) assume a bit more in depth cultural and/or pop-cultural knowledge than the unadventurous reader of USA-Today, (or, worse yet, MSN.com) might possess, the writers are not haughty or preachy. Humor abounds, especially in back pages devoted to critics. Though I frequently disagree with film critics Anthony Lane (capricious) and Terrance Rafferty (curmudgeony), their critiques make me laugh out loud. The truly unpretentious nature of the writing of the New Yorker is clearest in the "Shouts and Murmurs" section. Any magazine that prints a lovingly composed work of absolute nonsense by Steve Martin from time to time is worth giving a shot.

The fiction and poetry sections are almost always to my literary taste. Since I live in Manhattan, I do appreciate the local listings, and information. But I would still subscribe if I lived in Kansas, just because this is a provocative magazine for intelligent, thinking people - and fun to read too!
JANA

The writing in the New Yorker is impressive, and articles such as those on the the Iraq war and the recent piece on Ahmed Chalabi were exceptional, no other way to describe it. Good work. A recent issue had a piece by Edmund Morris on Reagan, an article on Schwarzenegger by Connie Bruck, and a book review by John Updike. Just great and fresh stuff for a weekly.

One minor complaint: too many advertising inserts. About 6 weeks ago the issue was 3/8" thick, half being advertising inserts, eight or nine thick inserts on cars liquor, electronics, etc. That ruined that issue and one could barely locate the articles among all the advertising clutter. I would rather pay a bit more and have less advertising.

Otherwise a worthwhile weekly read.

Jack in Toronto