The Magazine Rack: Farewell & a Look Back

Exciting new magazines are still being launched, but at a slower pace than in previous years. LJ's magazines columnist Bill Katz noted in "Magazine Madness: The Best Magazines of 1986 & 1987" (LJ 4/1/88) that about 600 new magazines were being published each year. Librarians' need for help to choose the best among this flood of new titles provided a strong audience for the reviews and fully justified following Katz's article with the "Best Magazines" feature each year. But as content is increasingly presented in different formats and media, LJ has decided to discontinue the monthly Magazine Rack. LJ will continue the annual best-of article, but the 44-year run of regular magazine reviews ends with this column.

What makes a good critic?
Rather than cry in my Kardex, I want to close with a tribute to my predecessors and to all the talented, creative risk takers who've launched all those magazines we've had the pleasure of reviewing. The patriarch was William "Bill" A. Katz, who started reviewing magazines for LJ in 1967. His work and LJ's ownership by R.R. Bowker led logically to the creation in 1969 of his standard reference work Magazines for Libraries (now in its 18th edition and updated by Cheryl LaGuardia). For many years, Katz wrote a column for every issue of LJ, cranking out an average of almost 100 reviews per year. His selections exhibit a special fondness for literary journals and an eagerness to give positive reviews to worthy little magazines. In fact, little magazines were featured in his first column, in LJ 1/1/67. From 1993 through 1994, he coauthored the column with LJ editor Eric Bryant. Katz then fully stepped away, and Bryant wrote the column solo from 1995 through 1998. In contrast to Katz's 100 reviews a year, Bryant averaged 51 reviews a year, a pace more or less maintained until now.

In 1999, the job of writing magazine reviews went to public librarian Michael Colford. He wrote the monthly reviews and the annual "Best Magazines" until 2005, when the job passed to librarian and poet Clayton Couch. I started in early 2008. Researching newly launched magazines, deciding what to review, and doing the write-ups was fun, but it was a lot of work. It didn't take me long to comprehend the time involved, and I quickly grew to appreciate LJ's magazines editor, Anna Katterjohn. I can't thank her enough for giving me the opportunity to write the reviews, passing along many new titles, catching my mistakes, and improving my writing. I'm looking forward to continuing to work with her on the annual best-of feature.

What makes a good magazine?
Of course, the job of reviewing new magazines would not exist without new launches. Whatever work is involved in writing fair and balanced reviews pales in comparison with the blood, sweat, and tears (and financial risk) required to launch and maintain a periodical. A fascinating aspect of reviewing was to see the range of passion and competence that went into new launches. Frankly, some new magazines stink. They are disorganized and incoherent, with bad graphics and little evidence of editorial vision. Most of those fell into my category of "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all," but occasionally I felt compelled to write a negative review.

On the other end of the spectrum are magazines that exhibit excellence from first glance. They are well organized, state a clear mission, have good graphic design, and pay attention to production details (like getting an ISSN). Many of those have content that confirms my first impression, but not always. A few have the appearance of a well-edited magazine, but on close reading reveal little of interest. An engaging magazine requires a clear mission and an editor who makes sure the vision is embodied in every issue. This is a difficult task that I believe is underappreciated.

Most new launches occupy a middle ground. The charge of writing fair and balanced reviews means to me an obligation to highlight magazines' most obvious strengths and weaknesses. Some have great graphics but are disorganized. Others have good writing but a distracting visual style. The most common flaw is a shortage of that essential editorial vision. Many of the brave editors and publishers of new magazines I reviewed exhibited an attitude of "let's throw it all out there and see what sticks," which seemed to me to be an especially common attitude among editors of literary magazines. The master of fine arts folks may want to boil me in hot beezle-nut stew for saying this, but that's why reviewing literary magazines often felt dreary. The new literary magazines all claimed to be unique, but I noticed a numbing sameness among them. There are certainly exceptions, and it was enjoyable to point out the special ones and explain what made them different.

The most fun I had writing these reviews came with the occasional magazine that displays a fresh creativity to make it genuinely one-of-a-kind. I have a soft spot for quirky works of true originality. Some are still around, like the fascinating Meatpaper (ISSN 1937-5085) and the witty Garage Slab. But many didn't last long. I loved Everywhere (ISSN 1940-9613) and got a big kick out of Twisted South (no ISSN), two among many inspired magazines that have folded.

It just goes to show that good things don't always last forever. Thanks for reading, and look for "Best Magazines of 2011" in the 5/1/12 issue of LJ.

This article originally appeared in the newsletter BookSmack! Click here to subscribe.