GQ (1-year)

Product Description

Amazon.com Review

The "GQ look" is synonymous with classic cool and sophistication, and despite a recent outburst of trendy magazines (think Maxim and FHM) vying for the attention of young professional males, the steeped-in-tradition monthly GQ carries on without missing a beat. Yes, there's more décolletage gracing the cover than there used to be, but GQ continues to supply enough cultural commentary, celebrity profiles, features, and style guides to keep the modern man in touch with what's going on in the world from month to month.

GQ's ideal reader is probably one who actually might be able to afford any of the high-end suits, shoes, and watches featured among the countless ads packed between the covers. Though the average reader might enjoy scanning a fashion spread about steakhouses entitled "How to Dress for a Porterhouse" and reading articles like "50 Ways to Blow Your Bonus," it's unlikely that such folly holds much practical advice. Literary editor Walter Kirn keeps short fiction on display, and Alan Richman's writing on food and dining out is always entertaining, even when he comes across as borderline cranky. Two regular Q&A features, "The Style Guy" and "Dr. Sooth," run the gamut from when it's appropriate to wear a straw hat to problems in the bedroom.
--Brad Thomas Parsons

Product Description

GQ helps you look sharp and live smart. Each issue brings you revealing sports profiles, intimate photos of today's hottest up & coming actresses and models, tips on fine food & drink, sex, politics, fashion and grooming advice, The Style Guy's answers to your questions and so much more!

See all Product Description

Product Details

• Format: Magazine
• Shipping: Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S.
• Publisher: Conde Nast Publications
• ASIN: B00005N7QI
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (83 customer reviews)
This magazine subscription is provided by Conde Nast Publications

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

68 of 79 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars GQ has lost its way....., August 26, 2005

By 

A. G. Corwin - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: GQ (1-year) (Magazine)

GQ has undergone a major transformation in the last several years from a sophisticated men's magazine geared towards professional, intelligent men to a magazine that attempts to stay relevant in a world where Maxim and FHM dominate. The writing has gotten progressively worse, although Alan Richman remains as good as always on food and wine. The photography is nowhere near the quality of a Vanity Fair, and I for one have enough magazines that have bikini clad women arrayed seductively on the front. I don't need more Jessica Simpson. (caveat: Jessica Alba cover was amazing). I subscribed to GQ because it was different from the rest. Now it looks and feels somewhat trashy. Though there are the occasional great articles, for me, Esquire is a much better magazine overall. I even subscribe to Vanity Fair which seems more appealing these days. Barring any major improvements in the next 5 months, I will let that subscription lapse.

208 of 254 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Losing the right to the word 'Gentlemen', June 30, 2003

By 

FrKurt Messick "FrKurt Messick" (Bloomington, IN USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: GQ (1-year) (Magazine)

I started reading GQ back in the mid-1980s. I was an undergraduate male, intent upon a political career in London. Thus, I felt GQ was a useful magazine to keep me up-to-date on the latest styles of dress, in addition to the occasional useful article on other topics of fashion, some sports, some travel, some pop culture -- after all, I was trying to be a 'happening' guy, and my social class and schooling (all conservative to the extreme, which in the big 80's was not out of place, but not cutting edge either) didn't give me all I needed to know.

Since those days (and since radical shifts in the direction of my vocation), I have used GQ less and less. Then, about a year ago, I got one of those buy-magazines-and-win-millions offers (no, I didn't win), and one of the few magazines that held any interest to me in this particular list was GQ. So, I thought, a few dollars, and I'll get a magazine I like.

Well, not quite.

GQ is very different today than I remembered. For one thing, only one of the past many issues I've received has seemed something I would want arriving at my home (as I am now a priestly sort) -- apparently, in order to stand out in the men's magazine world, GQ feels it necessary to put an almost-naked woman on ever cover in some sultry pose. Now, fair enough, this is appealing to men, but an examination of issues ten years ago will show this was not the cover feature back then (usually it was a man on the cover, either a well-known person from sports or entertainment, or someone showing a fashion style). The April 2000 issue is more what I was used to -- it has on the cover Nomar Garciaparra, Alex Rodriguez, and Derek Jeter. Of course, the headline has to appeal to the prurient interest, reading that they play shortstop as well as play the field. Included on the cover are stories about 'Alaska's Wild, Wild Women', an anonymous story entitled 'My Mentor, My Rapist', and a story about a new 'trend' of men becoming voluntary castrati. EEK!

This is certainly not the magazine I remember. I don't remember being titillated by GQ of the 80s (sure, there were advertisements that are always destined to have some sexual content, subtle and not-so-subtle), but GQ today is trying hard to compete with the almost (or maybe not almost) soft-core magazines such as Maxim. But I have found that I find very little of interest to actually read in GQ, and I am not so interested in the fashions or the sexual content any longer, so, I have come to the decision that GQ is no longer a magazine for me. And there seems to have been an explosion of advertisements -- so many, in fact, that it is hard to find the actual content of the magazine apart from the advertisements. Considering the number of advertisements (which, I must confess, all seem the same to me, and I'm an old PR guy, who used to teach advertising!), GQ should be paying me to look at the magazine!

And, I'm sure, GQ doesn't expect it to be. While in many demographic respects I am exactly who they are targeting (a 30-something, white, educated male), it no longer fits my lifestyle, which has taken a different direction from 'popular' culture. GQ has a strong audience, but alas, it is no longer the magazine for me.

Pass me 'The Economist', will you?

38 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Postives Far Outweigh Negatives, November 7, 2001

By 

D "sub" (Metro Detroit, MI USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: GQ (1-year) (Magazine)

GQ presents a difficult paradox of a magazine. There are many reasons to dislike GQ: Its pretentiousness, the focus on unobtainable clothing, the holier-than-thou writing.

But, there are so many positives about GQ that a subscription is not only recommended, it is almost required. First, and perhaps foremost, Alan Richman's food/restaurant columns. Second, Peter Bart (the once-deposed editor of Variety) writes a great Hollywood column. Third, GQ is far and away superior to its rivals, which I believe are Esquire and, somewhat surprisingly, Vanity Fair.

Fourth, the fashion features and celebrity interviews are beyond compare. Finally, GQ generally has one article a month that I would describe as investigative journalism, and these articles can't be missed.

All in all, GQ is an essential for any magazine rack.