TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
12.11.2007
Lapham's Quarterly: The Pretentious New Journal We Need

Lewis Lapham, editor of Harper's from 1976 to 2006, is starting a new magazine, humbly titled Lapham's Quarterly. It aims to "place current political events within the context of their historical antecedents." I haven't yet seen the first issue, "States of War," but the endeavor seems interesting—forgiving the frequently flat quotations and hollow historical name-dropping riddling the site. ("A library," wrote Henry Ward Beecher, "is but the soul's burial-ground. It is the land of shadows." This as the description of their new blog.)

For a slogan, they've chosen a quaint little antimetabole: "Finding the present in the past, the past in the present." Sounds like Crate and Barrel was brainstorming standard engravings for brass mantelpiece clocks and tossed Lewis Lapham their leftover.

The Lapham's Quarterly website "relaunched" today, which in actuality just means they uploaded three old scans and called it a new blog. This blog, "Paper Trails," is meant to make old, archived items from the NY Public Library available online for the first time. In a publicity email, an assistant editor writes, "Where else can you read Alexander Hamilton's handwritten letter to Mrs. Hamilton about gardening in their Harlem home?" Well, I don't know. Where else would think you'd want to? Hamilton's letter is not funny, not even by virtue of being dated. The internet, if not the gossip magazines beforehand, has already established celebrities as human. We get it. Alexander Hamilton, like Britney Spears, has a personal life--a much duller one. No need to prove it by publishing the prosaic.

Basically Lapham's is a magazine for the type of person who can't write an email without an epigraph. But... maybe we'd all be better off being that type of person. Maybe we—or I—would be better off more conscious of historical reverberations in the present. Comparing, for example, Nancy Pelosi's speech on the cost of the Iraq war to Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech on the cost of the Cold War promises to be enlightening. Which is to say, nitpicking aside, Lapham's Quarterly seems like an interesting and important project. I look forward to seeing where it goes once the editors actually have time to think and the magazine really gets off the ground.

--Francesca Mari

Posted: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:25 PM with 5 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

primwallflow said:

"For a slogan, they’ve chosen a quaint little antimetabole: 'Finding the present in the past, the past in the present.' Sounds like Crate and Barrel was brainstorming standard engravings for brass mantelpiece clocks and tossed Lewis Lapham their leftover."

Or sounds like their editor was up late with writer's block the night before the slogan deadline listening to Bob Dylan.

As an aside, thank you for introducing me to the word "antimetabole".

November 12, 2007 5:03 PM

shmooman12 said:

this was actually one of the funniest and best-written posts i've read on the plank in a while.  i actually laughed out loud at one point, and i loved the snarkiness.  the last couple of sentences made the post a bit less biting, but, still:  well done!

November 12, 2007 11:07 PM

nancyirving said:

I've always wondered how a pompous ass like Lewis Lapham could produce such an excellent magazine,  Harper's.

Or was somebody else responsible?  I will look at his new venture, for clues.

November 13, 2007 12:42 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Nancy - my guess is, lack of competition, at least in the pre-internet era. Harper's filled a void: there was no respectable, intelligent publication with the kind of punkish, "we piss anywhere" (K. Richard, Stones) sensibility that Harper's offered-- most prominently in the Harper's Index and "readings" sections. All the other ranting publications, left or right or otherwise, were tainted by their earnestness and pious BS. Harper's was largely free of cant.

Today, that doesn't distinguish you in the slightest from the 000's of websites that offer fresh, cant-free snark.

November 13, 2007 12:58 PM

aeromonas said:

On Harpers.

Used to read it religiously.  'Readings' always my fave.

The features, though, were always hit or miss.  Some good ones I recall from the early to mid nineties: a folio piece on opium poppies and the implications of their cultivation, a description of a freaky little exercise f***ing with peoples minds in LA called "The Museum of Jurassic Technology."  (I've visited the place.  Entirely worth it, though I was annoyed that some of the exhibits didn't work.  Unforgivable given that the 'curator' had the year prior received a Macarthur genius grant) , a Harper's forum on the ins and outs (hehe) of professor/uni student sexual congress in which to the outraged gasps of the other assembled academics one English prof with an interest in Freud proposed that there were certain girls at college who had neurotically delayed the loss of their virginity and that deflowering them could be considered part of a male professors pedagogical mission, and a vicious take-down of the Frugal Gourmet and his food theology.

Too often though the Harper's writing is a hopeless muddle.  It's like they take New Yorker "Personal History" rejects and print them with no further editorial input.

Anyone know what's happening with Harper's now that Lapham's flown the coop?  It was over a year ago that I last opened a copy.  Is it the new FHM?

November 13, 2007 2:32 PM