 |
1. New York’s annual �Yesteryear� issue paid tribute to nighttime’s rich past with a scrapbook of photos and stories covering 165 years of late-night mischief (�After Midnight,� March 23�April 5). The theme seemed to resonate. �Brilliant stuff,� tweeted mccarthyryanj. �A truly mesmerizing collection of words and images,� added SamAHoward. The issue �is the nexus of the universe with Jay McInerney, Lee Quiñones, and Rosie Perez,� tweeted maxlakin. In Jay McInerney’s introduction, he mourned the present �commodified� state of the wee hours. Readers agreed. �Back when NYC was more than just a playground for finance bros,� tweeted writer Scott Christian. But many still found a connection between the past and present city. �Sex, drugs, parties, booze � in NYC nightlife, some things never change,� tweeted Stealingmnhtn. �A reminder of all the things to love in this strange, strange city,� tweeted sonia_roubini. �I could add so much and don’t want this to end,� added Us Weekly’s fashion director, Sasha Charnin Morrison. Twitter user LadyMyler captured the general sentiment. �I can’t quite express how much I love this,� she said. �It prodded lovely and strange memories.�
 |
2. �Harvey knows one speed��Balls to the wall,’ he says. It’s both his greatest asset and weakness,� wrote Chris Smith in his profile of the Mets pitcher (�Are the Mets Big Enough for Matt Harvey?,� March 23�April 5). NBC’s Craig Calcaterra wondered if New York is ready for such a big personality. �The story sets up the interesting and precarious position in which Matt Harvey finds himself as a �personality, separate and apart from his identity as a ballplayer,� he wrote on NBCSports.com. �However, baseball�and especially the New York baseball media�has had 20 years of the quiet, businesslike Derek Jeter as its celebrity �face’ � It also has, in ways it never did before Derek Jeter came around, decided that one is almost not allowed to be recognized as a superstar until one has won a championship ring or five. Throw Harvey into that mix, and you’re bound to get criticism, thinkpieces, counter-thinkpieces and all manner of noise.� ESPN’s Johnette Howard agreed that Harvey’s larger-than-life personality puts him in a tough situation. �If Harvey pitches well and wins, all of these things will be a blithe part of his legend,� she wrote. �And if he doesn’t? He’ll be criticized for having too many distractions and too many run-ins with the Mets management.� But, she adds, while it’s �possible to think of the Mets making the playoffs this season with Harvey, it’s nearly �impossible to see them doing it without him.� Commenters also worried that his personality would ultimately be his undoing. �Can’t shake the feeling Harvey is a lot more interested in being a celebrity than a winner,� wrote �LTaylor4567. �Great talent and potential � yes, potential,� added stoneblu74. �Guy is 12-10 with a great ERA. But big ego and a bit distracted by the bright lights of Broadway.� Still, many readers seem excited at the prospect of a Harvey reign. �Worth reading about the phenom, and phenomenon, that is about to hit New York (again),� tweeted zcrizer. �Very ready for the Matt Harvey era,� tweeted connorsimpson.
3. Lee Siegel’s essay �Wrestling With Saul Bellow� (March 23�April 5) dived into his literary love affair with the Nobel laureate, whose reputation took a beating in the 1990s after bigoted comments he’d made surfaced, inspiring readers to reconsider the portrayals of women and minorities in his books. The essay sparked a debate about whether a writer’s moral character should taint the perception of his creative output. Commenter oldoldold suggested it shouldn’t: �It seems unreasonable, even greedy, to insist that someone must be lovely and virtuous as well as staggeringly gifted.� Commenter BasketWeaver also seemed willing to forgive Bellow for his offensive prose: �Leaving readers conflicted towards the material they’ve read is an extremely honorable characteristic for a writer to have.� At least one reader disagreed with Siegel’s characterization of the author. �It is simply not true that Bellow just turned cranky and right wing at the end of his life,� wrote Dex_Quire. �He saw new generations coming up without any �familiarity with literary culture or �tradition, and it disturbed him. Was �Bellow wrong to be disturbed? I just don’t see the judgmental crankiness that Lee says drove him away from Bellow�he always had something interesting to say about what was going on, and his art was beautiful to the end.� Zachary Leader, author of The Life of Saul Bellow: To Fame and Fortune, which Siegel discusses, wrote in to contest the assertion that his biography glossed over Bellow’s darker side. �His most controversial remarks about and depictions of women occur in the second half of the life when he was outraged by the excesses of the 1960s and embroiled in a bitter and protracted divorce case with his third wife,� Leader wrote. �Context is important in these instances, which is not to say it always or wholly excuses them. As Bellow himself admitted, he did not always behave admirably or honorably, a fact my biography makes no attempt to hide.�