Magazines? So 20th Century

Slate’s Jack Shafer ruminates on what makes a magazine great and selects Chicago-based Stop Smiling as a shining example in a world of dross. I gotta look into that. Although I now get most of my non-book reading done online, there’s an intimacy in holding and paging through a nice, smart mag which is definitely missed staring slack-jawed at a monitor.

I could so relate to the opening paragraphs in that article, having been something of a magazine junkie awhile back. Reflecting on publications I subscribed to in the years 1990-95: Rolling Stone, Spin, Raygun, The Village Voice, The Nation, Utne Reader, Entertainment Weekly, Artforum, MacWorld, Wired, Interview, Harpers Bazaar, Details, The New Yorker. Of those, only Entertainment Weekly remains a regular fixture in our mailbox (although the mag, having gotten progressively dumber in the last few years, is straining my last nerve).

September 28th, 2006 | Paper | Share This | Top

2 Responses to “Magazines? So 20th Century”

  1. Christopher Says:

    Which is why I refer to it as “Entertainment, Bleakly.” It is so true.

  2. Mass Bradley Says:

    I have my own rather arcane litmus test as to what makes a worthy mag– the “letters to the Editor” section.
    If most missives are of the “Thank You So Much For Those Delicious Jennifer Aniston Pix– she’s Such a Dish” flavor, I’m outta there.
    If they have an ounce of cogent commentary, I’ll stick around, regardless if the rag be high or low-brow…
    I miss “Highlights”.
    Oh, that Goofus and Gallant!
    And any issue circa-1987 of the late, great “Spy” still makes me giggle– remember Trump? MacInerney?
    Good times…

Leave a Reply