Esquire vs. GQ

[Ben_Hecht]

Something 21 said piqued my curiousity. Why do you think it is that there are quality mags like Esquire and GQ out there for guys with nothing equivalent for women? Is there an antiquated sense of what women want permeating the industry?

I wonder, too, if part of the problem is the fact women can pull of a "guy" story better than most guys can pull of a "women's" story. Lisa Taddeo comes to mind. That said, there are a number of features in Esquire that seem more than capable of appearing in a women's read. Take away the pictures (NO!) of Kate Beckinsale in a recent issue and it seems to me that story would have worked for women, too.

Of course, I could be speaking out of my ass.

I don't think the Ebert story can be pigeonholed as a "guy" story. Am I missing something?

Not a 'guy' story at all. But you wouldn't find it in a 'women's' magazine.

Shame on 'em.

I could see that story in VF, in a minute. And VF is metrosexual, at best.

 

[WaylonJennings]

I had no idea "Vanity Fair" was considered a women's magazine.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

I had no idea "Vanity Fair" was considered a women's magazine.

Clearly not . . . but their editorial orientation is clearly more towards that direction than Esquire's. Hollywood, Hollywood, Hollywood . . . beyond the
saturation point.

 

[SF_Express]

I read both every month. Esquire's been my favorite mag since I was 14 and I don't think I've missed any issues, but it came close to losing me in the 1990s when Granger took over. Jones once explained to me that I'm not supposed to like every writer in it; that's not how it's designed to be. Fair enough, I don't like all the writers in it. I also find the general tone self-indulgent at times.

I haven't read either in a while.

Harry Crews and Roy Blount Jr. were two of my favorite things in my life when they were Esquire columnists.

For entirely different, less likeable reasons, I always liked Alan Richman on restaurants, and occasionally his sometimes wrongheaded stories about sports writing.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Which one had the piece last year about the kid who blackmailed his gullible high school male classmates into having sex with him? That and the New Yorker piece on the allegedly wrongfully executed Texas man were the best magazine pieces I read in 2009, but I can't remember if that was Esquire or GQ.

 

[BRoth]

Which one had the piece last year about the kid who blackmailed his gullible high school male classmates into having sex with him? That and the New Yorker piece on the allegedly wrongfully executed Texas man were the best magazine pieces I read in 2009, but I can't remember if that was Esquire or GQ.

Ask and you shall receive. Twisted tale, but great story telling.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200907/wisconsin-high-school-sex-scandal-online-facebook

 

[SF_Express]

As often seems to happen with these things, the kid in the GQ story got sentenced last week:

http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=1287

 

[Brooklyn Bridge]

I've been receiving VF for about 2 years now and just began a subscription to GQ. Both are only about $15 bucks a year. The writers in VF are top notch IMO and many of the articles I go off thinking I might not be interested in, but they pull you in. They have been on top of this financial meltdown, with something like 4-5 stories on Bernie Madoff and his familiy, the meltdon of Bear Stearns and why Goldman Sachs stays on top.

The Rihanna issue was my first for GQ and was kind of underwhelmed. The only article I liked was on Shatner and why he remains relevant. Maybe its time to give Esquire a chance, but one only has so many hours in a month.

 

[heyabbott]

The thread on Jones' Roger Ebert story got me thinking: Which of these two fraternal twins is the better magazine? What's different about them? What's the same?

I absolutely cannot wait every month for both of them to arrive. Obviously GQ does a little more with the style and fashion material. I also noticed a Klosterman piece in there this month on Stephen Malkmus - did they hire him away from Esquire? Esquire, along with Vanity Fair, seems to have the reputation for more long-form narrative material, but GQ has plenty of its own meaty features, like the one this month on the suicidal Marines. GQ has Jones and Chiarella and Junod and others. GQ, however, did roll out J.R. Moehringer this month to write on Kobe, no small feat.

Thoughts?

I just get them for the pictures

 

[leo1]

the clothing advice in both mags has always struck me as a total farce. but i thought everyone knew it was something of a joke. virtually nobody in this country can afford to come close to affording the clothing they feature. how many people buy $600 shoes and $950 cashmere sweaters and $300 everyday shirts and $3,000 jackets and $12,000 watches every season? how many american men shop seasonally and pay any attention to what's in four times a year as the seasons change? not many. only the super rich can afford to live in that world, and i would venture to say that many of them probably don't even indulge like that because that's how they became super rich, but not making idiotic fashion purchases.

 

[Flip Wilson]

It's aspirational. Nobody buys the $3000 jacket. You buy the $290 knock-off that looks just like it.

Is there a $39 knock-off that looks just like it? That's more my range.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

What offends me in the fashion spreads is the bizarre pairings, such as this month in Esquire in which the tie costs more than the shoes. The suggestions aren't just useless for us, they are useless no matter how much money you have. In no way does it serve the reader; in fact it gives them the worst possible advice.