Reeves: Totally! I was thinking about a comment someone much smarter than me made about how, even though we’re in a Golden Age of TV, with a trillion shows to watch, that means that the best cinematographers and key grips and all the other jobs you need to make these things great are now spread across all those shows, and it’s tough to pull the best of the best onto one individual show. We have more pretty good shows, and maybe less great ones. I’m spitballing here, but, the same could be true of magazines: Vanity Fair was a good magazine in part because they just paid all the best writers a ton of money to work for them instead of anyone else. If you’ve got 30 great writers and 3 of them turn in a great story every month, you can do something great. It’s harder when you’re trying to find those three stories from a smaller group of people. The difference of course being that, uh, no one is calling this the Golden Age of Magazines.
Ben: True, though The New Yorker, which seems to be the exception that proves the rule in the Condé universe, is still certainly playing its A game.
Though, as we know, only New York Magazine can truly be thought of as “great.”
Reeves: Hear hear! The New Yorker’s still doing great and important work that breaks through all the chatter … almost as often as New York does.