The New Yorker launched their iPhone app today, and I’m not saying you have to download it, although as a current New Yorker subscriber (brag) I am probably actually going to download it because why not? But Lena Dunham wrote and directed their viral video ad for it and Jon Hamm is in it and so is the face guy from Girls and Tiny Furniture and it’s very enjoyable! Finally, the New Yorker and Jon Hamm and Lena Dunham prove they can do something GOOD for once in their dumb lives. Good going, you guys! (Via NewYorker.)

Comments (42)
  1. Meanwhile, those of us with Androids can finally download an app to quit punching ourselves.

  2. Um, just a minute ago, wasn’t this a post about the end of the world? Did anyone else see that?

    Oh, now it’s a post about Lena Dunham writing for the New Yorker. Same thing.

    • Lena Dunham is totally on your list.

    • I saw it too, Gary.

    • serious question. what’s with all the hate?

      • Her show is awful, she sucks the fun out of the room (see: the above video) and she’s a TERRIBLE writer? She comes off like a smug, self-satisfied pile of ick who refuses to leave her insular little world and thinks her lack of effort makes her edgy. And if she actually puts in effort and *this* is the end result? Holy crap. Please PLEASE find a new job, specifically one that means she’ll stay the hell off my TV and Internets.

        • i really [really] like her show. and Tiny Furniture. and that Nora Ephron piece she did for the New Yorker.

          I get the criticism, but 1) don’t understand why their is such a strong response to her* and 2) didn’t realize that opinion was so prevalent here.

          *i kinda think I do, but this is probably not the place to voice it.

          • The strong negative response is easy enough to understand, because it’s directly related to the VERY STRONG positive response she’s gotten in the media. If people didn’t treat her like she’s somehow the voice of 20-something women in America and a creative genius, I wouldn’t give two shits about her.

          • yes, that is part of it.

          • Yes, that is most of it. Objectively, her show has its moments, but it’s mostly bad and never amazing, right? So why is there so much buzz? Why is she everywhere this year? Like, the fucking New Yorker, really?? My problem with her is not just with her — hey, she’s really running with her moment! who wouldn’t? — my problem is with the way the world seems to keep lowering its standards in order to make her bigger and bigger and I can’t understand why.

          • I have a problem with her. She’s awful. If I didn’t know her from the insane hype around her, I’d know her from hate stalking her after reading her garbage writing and thinking “how the fuck did this girl get a byline?” — which, to be fair, I do fairly often if I read bad writing. Her interviews with people more famous than herself are one step up from actually asking where people get their ideas and the interviews with her as the famous person are worse than nails on a chalkboard. How do you seem awful on Colbert or Craig Ferguson? How?

            Her products suck. Zero stars.

          • because she’s talented and works hard?

            i don’t think you can argue about how wrong it is that the media puts her up on this imaginary pedestal when you yourself are putting said media on a pedestal of your own?

            the New Yorker is a magazine that publishes writings, often musings from famous people and they’ve done so for a very long time. so long, in fact, some of the stuff they’ve published might not be that good? everything cannot be the best and perfect forever. if it was, i wouldn’t be shelling out $12 a month to get HBO. i could watch great stuff on CBS for free and the Newsroom wouldn’t exist.

            i don’t find her smug or self-satisfied, in fact the opposite – as she most often takes herself down. she doesn’t walk around with an air of superiority [beyond the whole "New York" thing, but what person on TV [or New York resident] doesn’t act like it’s the only city in the world?

          • explainer guy, I feel like I should clarify: I do not put the New Yorker on a pedestal. I have canceled that subscription more times than I can count. But the fact is they do set their quality bar fairly high — and occasionally plow into or under that bar, but her new piece is way, way outside the standard deviation. Read the first 3-4 paragraphs and tell me if you disagree. So, why? Why’d they publish that? Is it a marketing drive to introduce the magazine to a new iGeneration of readers, as their Updikey generation dies out? And once they hook the kids, if she doesn’t improve they’ll replace her with someone who has less celebrity but more skill? It is probably that. It obviously isn’t just “talent and hard work.”

          • while you make a few good points, might I ask what the harm is on bringing her on board while she still has a few kinks to work out?

            the people that DO like her – especially ones that might like her enough to go subscribe to a magazine she occasionally might write in – are likely well rounded, smart, funny people – like, exactly the kinds of people the New Yorker sees as its future readers. It’s not like they’re lowering their standards to, say, Ashton Kutcher writing about how great he is at Twitter or something.

            granted, Lena is a flawed artist, writer, or person if you feel you know her enough to think that, but she’s also exceptionally young. She very well might turn into – i dunno, our generations woody allen. she could also turn into our generation’s Nancy Meyers…but it will be interesting to see how she grows and where her career takes her, and the possibility of her being young and only getting better is promising not only to us viewers and readers, but the editorial board at the New Yorker who think a talented girl who’s been getting lot of attention – earned or otherwise – might help continue their brand on into the future with a new generation of readers.

            but who am i kidding, this generation doesn’t read.

  3. Finally! I hate having to carry around my HUGE iPad to read the New Yorker. So inconvenient.

  4. I love this app! You can add Malcolm Gladwell hair to all your photos.

  5. this is like the Source Awards for white people.

  6. Never thought there would be something that would stop me from enjoying something with Jon Hamm in it, and yet here we are. Thanks, Lena.

  7. I can’t believe she had the foresight to make a video about the New Yorker app way back when she was in high school. (I’m saying the quality of this is terrible.)

    • If you think the quality of this is bad, you should read her piece getting published by the New Yorker!

      • That piece is wince-making. What is she supposed to be, a xerox of a xerox of a xerox of a xerox of Woody Allen? That crickety old magazine has prided itself since 1893 on never publishing anyone except John Updike, and suddenly it’s accepting junk that previously appeared in “ROYGBIV: The Oberlin College Student Anthology of Poetry, Fiction, and Essay, Spring 2009 Edition.”

  8. Do you just have to show Jon Hamm a New York driver’s license or something to be in your project or hang out? And if so, does anyone have an address where I can send Jon Hamm a bunch of photocopies of something?

  9. Oh look, she’s the same character as in Girls. How charming.

  10. “I use The New Yorker app on my iPad every day!” – Bob Dylan

  11. That. Is. A. Clip.

  12. I actually think a magazine as pretentious as the NYer is better for having someone like Dunham in it/shill for it. I genuinely enjoy her work and point of view. It’s a shame people can’t just be fans of Lena Dunham without entering into some larger, annoying conversation about the hype surrounding her.

  13. Even while doing a commercial/fake viral video with Jon Hamm, she still found a way to mention what a talented young writer she is. Never change, Lena.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.