The Pretentiousness of Harper’s Expanded into Lapham’s Quarterly
I have read Harper’s Magazine off and on for about five years now and the reason I have been ambivalent in my support comes from the tone of the publication. I am a fairly well-educated person who does not like the pretension of advanced degrees and lofty words (especially since I started teaching in college). The appeal of Harper’s has come from the publication of fiction, poetry and a few poignant essays on political issues that have caught my eye. The remainder of the magazine seems to be a tool to pump up the egos of snobs and elitists who share a disdain for simple sentences.
Editor-in-chief Lewis Lapham has converted this snobbish ethic into a new publication called Lapham’s Quarterly. I have not yet read this magazine but the name is annoying enough to prevent me from spending a single dollar. Lewis Lapham does not have the cache of Oprah Winfrey but seems to share her penchant for self indulgence. In the Columbia Journalism Review, there is a nice piece on the inaugural edition of Lapham’s new publication. The review is mixed though it seems to error on the side of annoyance with Lapham’s love of irony.
The first edition featured a series of essays on war that are meant to make us think about the current state of war in the world. The clips I have read about this first edition show a mixture of poignancy (a letter by a British commander in Mesopotamia before World War I) and pretentiousness (quoting Goethe and citing George Orwell as a contributer). I know that I will break down and purchase a copy of this magazine at some point simply to see how much arrogance is oozing from its pages.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Dear Nicholas, typically it seems like reviewers of written-out things, you know, books or magazines or that kind of thing, at least make a pretense of having read what it is they’re reviewing. Maybe you’re just pushing your distaste for pretense to new depths. Why not just say snotty things about *all* the stuff you haven’t read and then publish it as “media criticism” — now that would be *really* unpretentious. yours, peter struck. lq editorial board
November 30th, 2007 at 10:55 am
[...] Peter Struck from the Lapham’s Quarterly editorial board recently left a message on Media Critiques. This message along with an email with the same material criticized my initial critique of Lewis Lapham’s new publication for being misinformed. I have to stay that I am impressed that Mr. Struck has the time to scour the blogosphere for criticisms of the new publication. Thanks for reading Media Critiques, Mr. Struck! [...]