Customer Reviews

GQ (1-year)

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

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.

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?

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.

I've been a GQ subscriber for over 20 years but recently dropped my subscription. This is no longer the great men's magazine it once was. The features have dwindled in substance in favor of pictures and been overwhelmed by exploding ad content, making the "meat" minimal and very difficult to find.

Space which used to be devoted to interesting fashion, travel, "mixology" and dining has been diverted to titillating "skin" shots and silly lists of things which are uninteresting, useless and often offensive. What little fashion remains will be useless to those who inhabit even a semi-traditional world, though if your taste runs to 4 day beards, long uncombed hair and leather, you'll love it.

Also permeating the "new" magazine is a very heavy handed political agenda. The old GQ profiled politicians on occasion but with a focus on their personal side and without political "spin" to the story. Every issue of the new GQ trashes conservatives and Republicans from cover to cover. Examples---the current issue somehow finds a way to take a swipe at President Bush under the pretext of answering a reader question about loafers; a profile of singer Toby Keith is sneeringly derisive of his pro-U.S. songs; a recent review of several new British mystery writers found a way to spend much of its space trashing Margaret Thatcher, etc., etc.

So, the old GQ wasn't political and did a great job focusing on a broad range of fashion and other items of interest to guys with an emphasis on the traditional. It was interesting, entertaining and informative. The new GQ seems to me to have minimal use for anyone, even big city "hipsters" on whom the publishers have decided to focus. If you want liberal politics, or "skin" photos, you have far better magazine choices. There's precious little else left in GQ except for the scruffy guys in page after page of ads.

I never bought GQ back in my 20s because for one thing, I never thought of myself as a clothes-horse. Also, I actually took the G in GQ to mean that it was actually for Gentlemen, ie, sipping Champagne on a Yacht pass me the the Caviar type Gentlemen.

Well, after now having reached a "certain age" I find myself going back and forth between Esquire and GQ and find that in many cases, neither are exactly right for me. However, I think I've bought my last episode of GQ. The 2006 "interview" with Will Ferrel was interesting for the first three paragraphs, and then it became an excercise in self referentialism, disguised as an attempt at wit.

Also, the Political views of the editors of the magazine are omnipresent, which would be OK except for the fact that I'm not reading GQ for Political content. There are plenty of magazines out there make this their specialty, and when I find it in GQ, its just tiresome. Frequently, swipes at politicians just come out of nowhere in an article, as if the Editor decided that a jab at whomever he didn't like might help the piece, regardless of its content.

Not to mention - does anyone actually wear the clothing they put on display? $800 tennis shoes? I fear that I will be an Esquire reader - I can't bear to become a "Men's Best Life" subscriber just yet.

The style in this magazine is incredible; it's expensive and very fashionable, with the occasional cheap item to cater to the peasant reader (i.e., everyone).

That said, the magazine is rife with flaws. Snobbish east-coast writing, awful music that is lauded for no reason other than its anonymity, still worse book reviews of Norman Mailer-style authors, shrill articles by naive hacks, and so on.

The clothes are great, but buy with caution.

Unlike Maxim, Stuff, FHM and the rest of the new breed of men's magazines, GQ is in a class of its own, with a more style-conscious, upscale leaning than its upstart competitors. [It tends to be heftier than those mags, as well: Special issues, like the 'Men of the Year' annual, weigh in at as many as 500 pages, which- despite an abundance of ads- includes a wealth of interesting stories and photos]. Unlike its more glib offspring, which tend to rely on short, candy-ish items on sexy women, GQ focuses more on men of style and substance. Investigative reports by experienced, skilled journalists also separate GQ from other fashion-oriented magazines, which are often visually appealing but short on journalistic content. With its consistently strong photos, layout and design, GQ is handsomely ahead of the pack. For those less interested in fashion and more interested in journalism, Esquire is a good alternative choice. And readers after flashy, voyeuristic flair might be best served elsewhere, but GQ readers will be rewarded for their restraint with the occasional raunchy- but refined- spread. GQ seems aimed at the over-30 male, but the mag's assortment of model males apparently appeals to women as well, since they seem to be well represented in the magazine's readership. Overall, GQ is a stylish, elegant read that stands apart from its newer, splashier, offspring. A good choice for the style-conscious male reader.

This magazine has some good information, but it is hard to find with all the ads in the magazine. This magazine has tons of ads that surround its few articles. The articles it does have are generally good, but there are just SOOOO many ads. The ads are all over and it is the main reason the magazine is so large. This magazine could be a lot better with half as many ads and a few more articles.

Buy a magazine, mail in the subscription card. The magazines are faster to first issue and if you use Amazon it is IMPOSSIBLE to change the mailing address. I got one issue, moved and tried 4 times to change address. Pretty expensive issue.

I first subscribed to GQ when it was still a quarterly...an issue only every 3 months. Back then it was primarily a men's fashion magazine. It was sophisticated, useful and classy filled with clothing men could actually wear and practical grooming tips, trends and style. I suppose in many ways it resembled a Ralph Lauren print ad. Now fashion is relegated to a few pages in the back of the magazine with men wearing things they seem to have found at a local flea market. Nothing seems to fit properly, patterns - plaids - stripes...anything goes. It resembles homeless couture. Odds and ends that nobody should actually wear. Sure the world has changed. But fashion, good taste, and quality are timeless despite tweaking and contemporary preferences. The editors may feel that grunge, hopeless edginess for it's own sake and adolescent sloppiness sell issues. But they might be surprised that there's a huge pent up demand for sophistication and real style, both formal and relaxed. I hope someone else picks up the torch.