I have been subscribing to the New Yorker for more than 60 years. Why stop now? It is excellent.

I love THE NEW YORKER and wanted to give it as a last minute gift. It was easy and inexpensive with Amazon. This is the second subscription I've given through Amazon and will continue subscriptions through them.

This magazine has been cluttering up my living spaces for many years. One doesn't just toss these away after a quick read-there is always something to return to, whether a great cartoon, superb fiction, a wonderful essay.

I would not be without it.

Exactly. While the previous reviewer to use this title matched it with a full 5-star rating, I don't. If you want the most pompous view on everything no one ever asked about, then go ahead and buy a copy. I thought perhaps an informed, enlightend editorial tone would have been a nice perspective to bring into my home. Now, years later, they won't stop sending that rag no matter how many times they claim it's my final issue.

In short, not a fan. My advise to you: get one issue off the newstand and see what you think. If you're like me, you'll hate it and never go back.

Well-written, timely, erudite and down-to-earth -- no other magazine is as informative and varied in tone, or as much a pleasure to read. The "New Yorker" has a number of "beats" it covers -- contemporary politics, media, popular culture and art, humor, new fiction and a smidge of local, New York goings-on (not as much as in the old days, but the regionalism is still a delight.) Yes, other magazines cover these topics, but not in as accessible a manner. The "Atlantic" and "Harper's" tread similar paths, but they both seem overly stern and inaccessible by comparison. The "New Yorker" used to be incredibly fusty: since the magazine's 1992 facelift, courtesy of editor Tina Brown, it has a much lighter, more youthful tone. This, mixed with the erudite, well-researched, well-crafted writing, makes it one of the most rewarding reading experiences in America today. No matter what the topic, an article in the "New Yorker" will always be a shining example of language used to its best effect. Plus, I like the cartoons.

(PS - I weary of the "three F" -- fashion, food and finance -- reporting, but even if they overdo these subjects, it's still a great magazine.) (DJ Joe Sixpack)

If you like to read about NY restaurants, shows, gossip, and the New York Times is just not enough this is for you. If you don't care about NY and dislike the NYT the New Yorker is not the magazine for you.

I subscribed to this magazine for a year and really tried to like it, but it just did not work. Most of the stories are East Coast centric and fairly like minded when it comes to political and economic views.

One Amazon reviewer suggested The New Yorker is like a club, perhaps, but if you don't live on the streets of NY, it's a club you don't really care to join.

The first issue arrived in my mailbox in less than three weeks! The publication, of course, is great. Definitely snobbish, but covers a variety of topics and is extremely well-written.

I've been subscribing to the New Yorker for twenty years now and have never thought of stopping, a testament to the magazine's consistency. After 9/11 and the Iraq invasion of 2003, the magazine's reportage has been in my opinion the best, comprehensive, thorough, and never academic as it finds the narrative that resonates the most. The title New Yorker is not provincial; to the contrary, the title points to a cosmopolitan anti-tribalist sensibility. The only area of criticism for me are the short stories. About half are great; the other half I could do without. The cartoons have gotten stronger, especially with the contest in which professional illustrators make crazy cartoon scenarios and readers--brilliant readers I might add--provide captions after which the rest of us vote on the finalists. Great move. I read the contest captions first thing.

i love this magazine... it keeps me in touch with the beat of NYC....(that is the beginning where they have blurps on what is going on in the galleries, cinema, concerts ets).... On the other side... the essay writing is hard to read... I think that is because the writers are paid by the word... BUT the cartoons are GREAT!!!

`The New Yorker' is touted, especially by the publisher's advertising copy, as `the very best magazine in the country, and maybe the best magazine ever'. If there was ever a statement to raise the hackles of those who are disposed to criticize a publication, that is surely it. I happen to be someone who has read and liked the magazine for upwards of forty years. I even liked it before they added the Table of Contents, and I typically begin reading it from the back to the front, and often don't even get to the Table of Contents by the time the next issue arrives.

Since I don't live within easy commuting distance of New York City, I rarely bother with the `Goings on About Town', except for the thumbnail movie reviews in `Now Playing', as they will also be playing at my local multiplex. That leaves the reviews, the fiction, the poetry, the `in depth' articles, the cartoons, `The Talk of the Town', and the advertisements. It may be odd to cite the ads, but next to the cartoons, that was my favorite thing to read when I borrowed my uncle's copies to read as a teenager. And, I am certainly not the only one to be in that situation, as the Levenger Company claims great responses to their tiny marginal ads in `The New Yorker'.

Getting back to this `best magazine' claim, I find it difficult, especially with the great variety of magazines serving a great variety of purposes. How can any one say they are better than `Playboy', `National Geographic', `Natural History', `TV Guide', `Reader's Digest', or `Time'? Whenever I review a book, I always compare it to other books that address, or claim to address the same audience. I reconcile my usual practice with my devotion to this magazine and believe that it reduces to a matter of the quality of the writing. All magazines contain the written word, and I suggest that `The New Yorker' writing is as good or better than most.

Please note that the quality of the writing is NOT the same as the quality of the ideas about which the magazine's authors write! There is no question that the opinion of `The New Yorker' writers and editors is distinctly liberal, possibly as much as the best-known liberal opinion journals such as `The New Republic'. But `The New Yorker' is NOT representing itself as a journal of news (aside from its news of performance dates and times). It is an old style opinion journal harking back to the days of H. L. Mencken, `The Smart Set', and `The American Mercury'. While the magazine's agenda is liberal, its style is intellectual, not visceral. One is less likely to find the kind of informal fallacies in its articles that you will in the writing or speaking of many other commentators with a distinct agenda, including everyone from Bill O'Reilly on the right to James Carville on the left.

One of the best known aspects of the magazine is its distinctive style, which primarily involves not taking itself too seriously. In case you haven't noticed, the magazine's trademark cartoon character, Eustice Tilly, intently staring at a butterfly through a monocle, was adopted not to embody, but to poke fun at a certain Upper East Side, Central Park East hoity-toity attitude. The most concrete embodiment of this modestly urbane air is the writing style of the pieces in `The Talk of the Town'. While many different people have written them over the years, I swear the editors inject a serum into every new writer that inoculates them with the disposition to write that same low-key matter of fact tone I have read for the last 40 years. I have even gone so far as to write parodies of this style, which has been applied to virtually every subject under the sun.

This brings up what may be the most entertaining aspect of the magazine. It knows practically no bounds to the subjects it will cover in a given year. It has been known to devote a goodly number of columns to `The Sporting Scene', and it also dedicates a sizable amount of space to pieces of `investigative journalism', especially of U.S. affairs in the world by the likes of Seymour Hersh. But, it also carries many distinctive articles on food, horticulture, science, the arts in general, travel, history, and you name it! A steady diet of reading `The New Yorker' will never leave you without something interesting to inject into a conversation.

Then, of course, there are the cartoons. I confess, there are some cartoons to which I never do really get the point. But then, there are some, albeit very few, where the absence of a point is the point. Otherwise, one must be in fairly close touch with popular culture and current events to get many of the cartoons. But then, that's the fun of it, knowing you are `in the know' well enough to appreciate a reference to Keith Richard and ashes!

By far my favorite part of `The New Yorker' is the book reviews. I confess that I have probably confounded more than a few readers of my reviews by the roundabout style I copied from `The New Yorker' way with books. The very best thing about many of the reviews is that they will cover two or more books on the same subject in one review. Thus, not only do you hear which may be the better, but why, in comparison to a work which is doing the same thing. I do confess to a bit of frustration with the movie reviews. This is one place where the laid back style, rarely showing enthusiasm for anything, can be a bit annoying, but I will always trust that `The New Yorker' movie review will be a better reflection of my tastes than virtually any other review.

Unfortunately, I never read the fiction or the poetry, since Woody Allen stopped contributing material.

Among current magazines for discerning readers, I find The New Yorker the very best. Current topics, issues, and/or personalities are covered at length and in depth with relevance to the context of today's world. Each issue contains a highly readable fiction piece relevant to today's world. Throughout the magazine the writing itself is of the finest quality. I look forward to my weekly "fix" of this outstanding magazine.

the language in many of the articles is very good.. but the content in general is pretentious and irrelevant.

have to be one of those smug people who would enjoy the smell of their own flatulence (courtesy: south park) to enjoy this magazine as a regular read.

As another reviewer recently said, the bias is indeed laughable...unless I suppose you share the viewpoints of the very liberal editors. Reading the front matter of the current issue, which contains short snippets of current affairs editorials and such, I was easily able to refute every point the author was trying to make. It is the same hyper-liberal sludge that is so far to the left that is easily passes for a joke.

Otherwise, despite the bias that may permeate the magazine, the main articles are lengthy, very well written, often unique and interesting, and intellectually satisfying.

While some viewpoints are amusingly bias to the sensible reader, the rest passes for excellent journalism.

I have to admit that I'm a big fan of the New Yorker. To me it embodies the phase je ne sais quoi. There are not too many magazines out there offering up the type of information and entertainment which it does. Its reporting is exceptional and I greatly enjoy the extended pieces on topics which other journals don't explore in the same detail. To the denizen of New York, its early page descriptions of city life are intriguing and undoubtedly invaluable even if they are bewildering to the non-resident (like this reviewer). I also enjoy its art and its cartoons. The one reason that I cannot give it more than a three star rating is due to the rampant leftist bias of its political coverage. This is something which it needs to be more honest about. In the most recent issue, I read a The Talk of the Town concerning the State of the Union Address and was appalled by the partisan slant of its writer who happens to be the senior editor, Hendrik Hertzberg. The skewed prism in which he views the world was so obvious that I began laughing. He mentions the Republican minority's vain efforts to respond after Johnson's speech in 1966 along with the weakness of Dole's minority rebuttal in 1996, but then raves about the great work done by James Webb the other night. What a surprise! Then he plays the shill for the Democratic Party by pretending that they have presented a policy for Iraq when they clearly have not. A truly honest and reputable publication should inform readers of the angle from which they process political events, but the New Yorker fails to do so. This a black mark against an otherwise outstanding magazine.

Great stories, habitually written very well. I think it's a keeper.

One of the spotlight reviews referred to NY readers as a secret society or an elite. I'm sure this is tongue in cheek because the New Yorker really is a magazine for everyone to enjoy if they can get past its intimidating rep.

I got sucked into the New Yorker because I picked up a roommate's copy and to my surprise became absorbed by, of all things, a story about problems with mail delivery. i thought it would be boring (which was my perception about the magazine) but couldn't get over how interesting it was. I became a subscriber and have been (with a few interruptions) a faithful reader ever since. I always find interesting things to read and I've found the magazine to be a great guide to topics that I normally would not have been interested in and I am better informed because of it. The magazine is fearless in its reporting even if its stories challenge society's sacred cows. Elizabeth Kolbert's recent series on climate change is one example of the New Yorker's outstanding reporting.....it was the clincher for me in terms of understanding how overwhelming the evidence is for global warming and how imminent the threat is.

Since I cut my teeth on the New Yorker during the Tina Brown years I've always had a soft spot for that time in the magazine's history. I lived in a very small town at the time and I always found the magazine to be a great guide to a different world that was/is very hip, funny and smart. The actual pieces are still that way but I find some of the editorials somewhat knee-jerk albeit written in a very articulate way. I guess I'm the type of reader who likes to absorb information and come to my own conclusions about things and there is something a little musty about the mindset of the editorial writers....it just feels a bit ivory tower. However that is a very small complaint: for political reporting, sports, culture, world affairs, and the occasional slice of life quirky tale the New Yorker is a great passport to a fascinating world.

I live in a small town full of rednecks-- this magazine helps me escape.

The new yorker was love at first site for me - I saw it on a friend's coffee table and I was drawn in intially by the photography and the intelligence of the writing. People always refer to the "Tina Brown ERA" as if it was a total disaster...but I disagree...perhaps because it coincided with my mid to late 20's, shortly after I first started subscribing to the magazine, when I needed culture as much as I needed knowlege. I thought TB added some sparkle to the nerdy publication - I loved the photo essays, and the women's profiles - I remember reading about Elizabeth Dole and Hilary Clinton, etc. Tina Brown got me hooked. David Remnick kept me going on a more nutritious and wordy diet. I do read it every week - skim, remove cards, read comics, check out the articles, go back to read the ones that are interesting. I have no idea why people would feel that they have to live in NYC to benefit.

I was introduced to the New Yorker when I first arrived at grad school--and have been an avid fan ever since. You don't have to live in NY to love this magazine! Its articles, stories, cartoons, poems and commentary never fail to turn a cup of tea on an afternoon break into something more--like being invited to engage with the clever minds of our day. If you are no longer in school, staying well informed in this way is priceless. There are insights here that appeal to our need to be reading something with style so thoroughly that they make you wish your busier friends had enough time to discuss some of the controversial or witty contents with you. The cutting edge reporting is unparallelled in "literary" magazines of this sort. I will never forget the provocative articles on low energy radiation and cancer that caused such a stir in the late 80's, when people began exposing themselves to computers on a regular basis. The New Yorker is a gem. Picking up a copy is like fine dining in an era of junk food. Treasure it.

The New Yorker is both a blessing and a curse for me. It's a great magazine, but sometimes I feel so compelled to keep up with my weekly New Yorkers that I find it feeling like a burden.

My brother has a system, he just shared it with me, I hope he doesn't mind me sharing with you. The day a new issue arrives, he immediately goes through page by page, removes the subscription cards and advertisements, reads the cartoons and asides ("constabulary notes from around the world," "Block that Metaphor"), scans the poems, and gets the lay of the land. He then goes back later with a map in mind of which articles need to be read, and can tackle them undistracted by the rest of the magazine. I don't know, he says it works for him, he never falls behind.

My grandfather read the New Yorker every week. He had a coffee table filled with the newspapers and magazines he subscribed to. He also drank tanqueray. He did not do Sudokus or listen to Gabby La La, but perhaps would have if born in a different era. He had big bookcases filled with wonderful books. Sometimes a visitor would marvel at how many books he owned, and ask "have you really read all these books?" He would answer, "no, not all." And after the visitor left, he would gently and with remarkable restraint, explain to us why the question asked reveals a lack of education and sophistication. "...any serious reader knows that nobody has read all the books in their collection"

In my review of Highlights Magazine (or as my daughter calls it, "Maz-a-Gine"), I called it the New Yorker of kids literature. So it is only fair for me to now pronounce the New Yorker to be the Highlights Magazine of adult lit. A little old-fashioned, snobby, a touch stale, but still the best there is. I didn't even mind it during the Tina Brown era, it lost a little of its uniqueness temporarily but was still a cut above the rest. I wouldn't mind if there was a little more variety in the poetry, less of the same types of dreary poems about growing older and having your lover die from the same dreary poets, more of an effort to discover new poets. I love the fiction issues when they attempt to showcase new writers.

I'd possibly get more out of it if I lived in New York. As it is, I'm mostly taunting myself by reading the "Goings on about town."

Lately I've been especially enjoying the political essays in "The Talk of the Town" by the likes of Hendrik Hertzberg, David Remnick, as well as the journalism of Seymour Hersh. This kind of reporting is more important than ever, important to be appearing in a mainstream, respected publication during a time when the executive branch is doing everything in its power to intimidate an already cowed media. Henrick Hertzburg's recent essay on the proposed flag burning amendment. I intuitively know what he is saying, intuitively believe it to be morally and philosophically correct, but can't articulate my thoughts with the elegance and clarity of Mr. Hertzburg. He concisely lays out not just how wrong the amendment is, but also how irrelevant the issue is in all but a symbolic, abstract dimension. He writes that Republic and Democrat supporters "do not seriously regard it is as a good let alone necessary idea," and sprinkles in the beautiful parenthetical "(intellectual corruption, like the venal variety is no stranger to either party, even if, in the present era, both varieties are more common among the Republicans.)" Good stuff, Papa would have appreciated it.

Buy it, subscribe, enjoy.

I encountered the New Yorker in my best friend's house when I was ten years old, becoming hooked from the first time I opened the magazine. Ever since I have been an enthusiastic, appreciative reader. I delight in the quality of the prose;I laugh uproariously at the deliciously witty cartoons; savor the poems; marvel at the creative covers and other artwork. Five stars plus plus plus!

Yes, as other amazon reviewers have pointed out, the quality of the magazine declined drastically during the Tina Brown era. Happily for all concerned, the New Yorker is back on track after that unfortunate detour.

Throughout its illustrious history, some critics have said that the magazine is too focused on New York City. While the events listings are invaluable to people living in the area, this best of all American magazines offers in-depth articles, rich humor, superb book, music, movie, dance, and art reviews aimed at a reading public all over the country. I would even expand that to say, all over the world.

If you have time only to read one weekly magazine, make it this superlative one. Since the day I first turned it pages, reading the New Yorker has been as necessary, and as life-giving, as the air I breathe.

The New Yorker is consistently the most well-written, readable, and important magazine in America. For anyone wondering how the Abu Ghraib scandal broke: New Yorker. For anyone wondering which magazine wrote a prescient profile on John Kerry when he was perhaps the biggest long shot for the 2004 Democratic nomination: New Yorker. Simply put, the New Yorker, as many reviewers have already acknowledged, is the best written and most substantial magazine hitting newstands every week.

For those who criticize the magazine as "snobby," feel free to go back to Time or Newsweek, which dilute what might be good reporting with hundreds of ads and the twice-a-year "Who Was the Real Jesus?" issue to perk up sales.

For those who criticize the magazine as too liberal, I will be the first to admit that liberalism (in its traditional sense) is a motivating factor in the magazine's editorial decisions. But if you think the New Yorker "tows the Democratic line," I'd advise you to compare it to the Nation or other such publications. Normally, the New Yorker's reportage is so intricate and off-the-beaten-path that politics rarely enters the debate.

Pick up an issue and actually read every article (even the long ones). It's incredibly rewarding.

'New Yorker' has a look of its own , a feel of its own, a flavor of its own.
It is one of the great magazines.
Its cartoons are classics of the genre.
It provides the calendar of NY events in a quite detailed and helpful way.
Its smartness, sharpness are felt usually in the 'Talk of the Town' feature.
If nothing else, historically, it has its place as the locus of publication of some of America's greatest fiction. Salinger and 'the New Yorker' go together. Isaac Singer and Updike also published some of their best work in 'The New Yorker'.
The new non- fiction star Malcolm Gladwell did his breakthrough work in 'The New Yorker'.
The 'New Yorker' has each week a long feature article often of the greatest possible interest. The magazine seems to bring out the highest quality in its writers.
With all this I nonetheless have strong criticism of the 'New Yorker' especially in regard to one investigative reporter who in my opinion has often shown more imagination than investigation, Seymour Hersh.
I know that the general opinion is that David Remnick, the current editor has done a great job in bringing up circulation and restoring quality to the journal.

This is without question one of the best magazines in the country. It is topical and the stories are well written. The cartoons are a bit hit and miss, but that's a minor quibble. This is one of the few magazines that is consistantly good, and I often read it from cover to cover, some say it's a bit liberal and that's fair, but it does not take away from the fact that it is a wonderful read. Even though at times I vehamently disagree with a commentary I always feel like I have been educated, and I come away feeling wiser, and if you can say that about a magazine then you are really saying something. I dare say, anyone reading this review probably has an opinion of this famous magazine, but if you are one of the few that is on the fence, so to speak, then I hope I have encouraged you to give it a try, I'll bet you will be glad you did.

If you want to know about and read reviews about current New York city entertainment, the New Yorker gives a great overview. Includes about 6 to 8 well written current affairs articles, with a definite liberal slant.

Great book reviews and essays -- often about books and authors that are not in the mainstream fiction and non-fiction booklists.

Avant-garde short stories by both new and established authors.

And, of course, the cartoons. Surprisingly, these are generally fairly benign with little political or current affairs focus.

I have ordered the New Yorker for two years. I cannot say that I have had the time to read all (or, for that matter, most) articles in every edition, but when I do find a chance to get through the magazine--or an article that catches my eye--I find the New Yorker very rewarding. The writing in the New Yorker does not always match my opinions, and neither does it always have a "literary merit" that most people attribute to it (this can usually be found in the "Fiction" sections). But, I don't always want the writing to have oustanding literary merit.

The articles in the New Yorker are logical and--what I think differs it from most other magazines--remarkably descriptive. After reading an article on the critic and author Edmund Wilson, I learn the most intimate details of his life. The New Yorker also provides information about the lives of his contemporaries. I can get a view of his whole era.

As a student, I can say that reading the New Yorker gives me a comprehensive knowledge. It doesn't narrowly focus on one topic, but instead connects the subject to many events of a time period.

There are many reasons to love this great magazine and a few reasons not to. One of the reasons not to is there many ads, but if you want to read what great writers write you have to make reading The New Yorker on your top 10 list.

in a world where hype and superficial journalism has reached new dimensions, the new yorker is an amazing world in itself. there goes rarely an article left unread by the time a new issue arrives, the lure of many worlds to explore and promise to really learn about life as it is now. most of all, it's definitely worth the time.

The New Yorker has made it's way to our kitchen table since I was tall enough to see over the edge of the table. My Mom was an avid reader and now I buy the magazine, cause she would have wanted it that way.

I like it for the cartoons and I'm absolutely naive when it comes to politics, so I need this magazine to get some idea of what is going on.

With all the Blogging and other nonsense, I feel secure that the New Yorker does diligent fact checking before it prints something, so I rely on it where I won't rely on news printed on the internet.

Regards, Lara

Along with the New York Review of Books, The New Yorker is a must weekly read for me. I read it, cover to cover except for the ads, for 45 minutes to an hour each night before sleep. Roger Angell on baseball is the best; Lane and Denby tag teamming on the movie reviews; Joan Acocella on dance (Dance! I've read more about it than I've ever seen), and the list goes on.

Left wing? Several reviewers here said the magazine is left wing. This is hilarious. Obviously these people have never read a left wing maqgazine, and such comments only illustrate the extent to which the political spectrum in the US has shifted rightward. For left wing try: The Nation, The Progressive, Dissent, or Monthly Review. The New Yorker is as middle brow bourgeois as it gets.

I have been a reader for 20 years, but am considering canceling my subscription (I did this once before when it became a Vanity Fair look-alike under Tina Brown). I think the writing is exceptional. My complaint is that the issues have become thinner (with an embarrassingly small "Double-Issue" mid-August). The articles are shorter and edited to end at the bottom of a page, which sometimes breaks the article's flow. It is full of advertising, which pays the bills, but now seems to have squeezed out some of the writing. The articles also do not seem as essential as they had in the past. The political writing is great and the movie reviews by Lane and Denby are the best you will find.

I got to read this magazine in my local library where you can actually check out magazines and keep them for a week. Soon decided to subscribe it instead of running to the library everyweek. What I like about this magazine is the time it takes for me to finish one article is about the same amount of time it takes me to get tired and want to go to sleep after reading. It covers a variety of issues, such as world politics, health, environment, art, you name it. One thing I need to point out is, English is my second language, so it also helps me improve my vocabulary. And I totally agree with one of the previous reviews, that is you never get to read 3/4 of its content, one thing is certain for me, I never read its fictions.

Few magazines can match the New Yorker's high caliber of journalism, fiction, reviews, and of course, cartoons; all written by some of the best writers in the land. It makes mainstream magazines like Time and US News look like high school newspapers. But, one word of caution: if you're the type of person that whines "liberal bias" at anything that you slightly disagree with, then this is not the magazine for you.

New Yorker is one of the best magazines available in the US. It has a good mixture of articles on current events, culture, fiction, humor. And one shouln't forget those notorious cartoons. The lengths of the articles range from the very long to the very short, and should amply sustain one's weekly need for reading material.
Please be aware that all articles have a coat of liberal paint. But the New Yorker is probably the most sensible left of center media source in this country.

I have been subscribing to the New Yorker for five years now, and it has been a very enlightening experience. The New Yorker does its part in covering big news stories, but it's not really a news magazine. The perspectives are unique (and admittedly lean to the left), and the kind you're not likely to get elsewhere. The authors use the first person because they tend to be part of the stories they're covering. Take Jon Lee Anderson, probably the most credible reporter covering the Middle East today. His "Letters From" various cities involve accounts of his meetings with locals and leaders.

Other segments are more like NPR stories--unique perspectives on largely uncovered topics that aren't time-sensitive. You'll get in-depth looks into developments in medicine, law, architecture, etc., that otherwise wouldn't get on your radar unless you were in that profession. And, the writers incorporate the "larger questions" in stories focused on recent events. Like Malcolm Gladwell's recent account of a playwright who plagiarized material from a former article written by him. He parlayed his personal struggle into a good summary of legal and ethical positions on the use or development of one person's idea by another.

I have grown to look forward to reading the Fiction selection each week. Sometimes I don't like the piece, but I enjoy getting the chance to read writers that I normally wouldn't and those that I normally would.

Additionally, the magazine has added more dedicated issues--most recently the "Food" issue, in addition to standbys like the "Style" and "Fiction" issues. I loved the "Food" issue, especially one writer's account of the search for truly authentic pasta that involved a work night in Mario Batali's kitchen and a trip to Italy.

I enjoy the balance of hard news, balanced interest stories, and arts that the New Yorker provides. I began my subscription to get a different perspective than what I got from local Southern news, and I keep it for the same reasons and many more.