I agree. Can't stand Gopnik.

I don't read the New Yorker that often, but I did read one of Gopnik's books a few years ago, "Paris to the Moon". It was mostly a snorefest.

It was indeed. And it was somewhere in an early chapter of that same book that I decided I thought the guy was a class A asshole.

What did it? The lengthy description of how his father condescendingly lectured every waitress on how to make a cafe au lait. This was told as if it were an amusing character portrait - that fussy dad! That dumb waitress! Haha! - but I couldn't see it from any other point of view than that of the waitress, who was probably ready to throw a hot, very hot, cup of coffee, containing an equal amount of hot, very hot, steamed (not boiled!) milk right into the lap of this petty, passive-aggressive bombast.

And then I couldn't really see Gopnik as anything but an insecure kid still trying to impress his authoritarian, college-prof daddy.

I didn't like P to the M, but he curated (or wrote about, or something, I forget) an art show I like (here's the book--if you can get it through a library or otherwise look at it for free, it's highly recommended).

I really like him and loved Paris to the Moon.

Gopnik is probably the best writer the magazine has. But it's always amusing to hear contrary opinion.

Gopnik is probably the best writer the magazine has

sadly, it may be true.

Gopnik is probably the best writer the magazine has.

No, that would be John McPhee, but Gopnik isn't far behind. I'm not sure why the hate here, honestly.

For example, matteo, why do you think that column is evidence of his being a bad writer?

I mean, you make a statement as if it is somehow irrefutable-- that column is "why Gopnik is teh suck."

But this is simply your opinion, and you haven't even bothered to support it.

Would you care to?