Wednesday, September 04, 2002

When I got first full-time, permanent job, after six years of post-secondary education and three years of contract and part-time work, I rewarded myself thusly: I subscribed to every magazine I even vaguely coveted. If you are ever in need of some form of self-indulgence I would strongly recommend mass magazine subscriptions. Every month becomes a windfall of joy.

I read lots of magazines. I would frequently be struck by something brilliant that had to be promoted and shared with others. I needed a way to differentiate my online zine from other online zines. So I created a feature: The Rain Barrel Maglog.

In retrospect, I believe that one of the reasons why I stopped the Maglog was that the sheer volume of magazine reading that I was doing was making me into a more discerning reader. This was a problem because over time I became less impressed with most of the magazines in my mailbox. As well, I couldn't find any newer magazines to take the place of the one's that I had grown tired of. I lived in a cruel time in which entire magazines were dedicated to painting on rocks and yet it was difficult to find something that spoke to me. Other than Harper's.

I would rather write about things that were nobler in the mind rather suffer the slings and arrows of outragous crappy writing because to oppose them would not end them (and I would rather sleep).

So I started reading books again. Mostly non-fiction books. Many of which are really just long-play magazine articles. And I assimilated the Maglog into the New Jack Almanac which did not really address the problem.

And today, the problem again stares me in the face: is it worth reviewing something totally awful?

The awful item in question is Shift Magazine's 10 Anniversary Collector's issue. The issue is essentially two things: lots of retarded top 10 lists and a 12,000 word article on The Simpsons Generation which is unspeakably bad. It's ... it's ... why should I bring attention to something I wish would go away?

No comments: