This issue marks, as you may have already noticed, the redesigned layout of First Things. The blame for all this belongs solely to me, the editor, for I’m the one who decided that the old layout had grown tired and stale. There has been, over the twenty years of the journal’s history, something self-assured and unapologetic about the purity of the unaesthetic presentation—a declaration that text is what matters and visual frills are a weakness for others to indulge.
These days, however, the Internet has taken over many of the purposes of magazines, including the task of simply making text available. Indeed, in certain ways, the Internet works better than the old system of print, if the goal is purely to make reading material available to the public.
That seems to me much too small an editorial goal. Not wrong, you understand, but somehow diminished and constrained as an aim. A magazine is more than the print edition of what can now be done more quickly online. First Things is about the words it contains, but it must also be about the things those words can do in a magazine.
We have experimented with pictures over the years, illustrating an occasional architecture article and running, back in the 1990s, a year-long series of glossy-page photographs of Christian signs from across America. But none of those quite clicked in the layout at the time, for they required something more systematic and complete about the visual presentation of the journal.
And so we have now undertaken the redesign that begins with this issue. In the public discussions of America, First Things works for several things. The fight, for example, with those who want to strip the world of its religious clothing and create the naked public square. The long struggle against the murderousness of abortion. The attempt to sort out the good of modern democracy and science from the horrors that have emerged through what we insist are wrong turns taken in the name of modernity. And, most of all, the effort to be physicians to this Iron Age in which we live—the effort to reinvest the world with the richness, thickness, and freshness that is found only in truly God-haunted nations and societies.
But, as a magazine, First Things also works to preserve the high culture of intellectual journals: a culture that is fading under pressure from the Internet, from the weak American financial situation, and, not to mince words, from the absurd decline of print standards in this country.
Many magazines have given up on poetry—and so we print poems. Many magazines have given up on the long-form reporting that was once the glory of American journalism—and so we want to showcase that kind of story. Many magazines have given up on intellectual essays—and so we continue to present them, as we have always done, to our readers. For that matter, many magazines have given up on superior and intellectually challenging crossword puzzles—and so (over some internal objections, I should note) I demanded that we pick up, as well, that fallen standard of journalism.
Most of all, American magazines these days seem to have given up on elegance—and so we decided to demand art covers, and interior photographs, and fine text layout.
In other words, First Things defiantly refuses to accept the diminished condition of American print today. The object in your hands must be a pleasure to hold and read—or what good is a printed journal, with the cacophony of the Web sounding all around us?
The new layout is intended as an announcement that we will do what we have always done, and more besides. The essays will be the deep and serious intellectual endeavors they have been before, marked by the rag paper interior. And wrapped around those essays will be illustrated pages that raise, on a hilltop, the old banners of beauty in print.
Readers hate change, for a while. There is a pattern in such things, and every redesign creates controversy—and rightly so, for, as our founder, Richard John Neuhaus, once described a friend of the magazine, “He’s a conservative by temperament, one of the people who would have complained on the second day of Creation.”
And, as I said, the blame for the redesign, if blame there is, should fall on me. The credit, however, goes to others. To David Blum, our new executive editor—a true editorial pro, who, in addition to his distinguished magazine and book writing, recently ran and revamped such publications as the Village Voice and the Harvard magazine 02138. To Mary Rose Rybak, our managing editor, whose organizing skills and upbeat nature made a stressful process almost pleasant. And to Luke Hayman, a National Magazine Award–winning partner of the Pentagram design house, who, together with his designer Shigeto Akiyama, creatively fulfilled the nearly impossible demand that First Things announce visually that it is what it has always been and more.
This redesign is intended as a declaration. It’s an announcement that this is a journal unlike any other in the world. That we will not pander. That we defy the small and weak-willed trends of our diminished moment. That beauty, and text, and content, and presentation, and the experience of reading all matter—and matter greatly, to us and to the world in which we live.
Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things.
Comments:
The image on the cover is just right. The glossy pages for photos are not at all gaudy. The split of your commentary and "While We're At It" works great as frame to the rest of the content. Am I mistaken or has the latter returned to stiletto satire at which Fr Neuhaus was past master? The icons for the very real books in the review section are exactly what was missing. Even the final image of the young lady at church fit.
Thank you.
BRAVO on a beautiful redesign of my favorite magazine--FIRST THINGS. I was taken aback upon seeing the rust-red cover peering from my mailbox--then I opened up the plastic sleeve and simply marveled at the look and feel of the new design-WOW!!! EXTREMELY WELL DONE!!!
MH
NYC
a wonderfully written article. I have not received the issue in the mail yet, so I cannot comment on it. I have to touch it, feel the paper, see the letters, take it all in. However, I want to comment on one thing: you obviously value aesthetics and elegance of human hand, human mind and heart. And for that I must applaud you. In this world of discordant existence, absurdist views and "closed doors," you move towards the "yes" of God, the "yes" of human experience. The more we sink into absurdity, the more I am FULLY convinced that "beauty will save the world."
Yours,
Emina Melonic
One thing, though: Mike Melendez commented that, given the design of the Harvard Magazine, 02138, my "guidance of Mr. Blum must have brought out his best work."
It's actually the other way around: Dave Blum is bringing out the best in us. As far as I know, 02138 no longer exists, and the major redesign he did of it never actually got shipped--the magazine closed by its owners just as he got it ready to go.
Their loss. Our gain.
So, first reaction: It could have been a lot worse.
Second reaction: It's actually good.
The marriage of photography and improved layout and typography with FT's mandatory excellence of intellect is a union made in heaven. I look forward to seeing the latest issue in my mailbox.
I like pretty much everything else though.
The "self-assured, unapologetic purity" of the classic layout WAS aesthetic--it attracted many readers in the first place, and it was perfectly suited to express the content of the journal. The new layout is not a superficial alteration--it expresses a different kind of substance, the same kind of substance that was recently expressed in the unfortunate "Mitch Albom Is an Idiot" line on the cover. What next? Will we soon be seeing "BFF" and other text-isms in print? (Oh, wait--it's already there this month.)
I am surprised that a professed poet AND Catholic such as Mr. Bottum thinks one can be so cavalier about the relationship between form and substance.
I am also sorry to hear that the leadership of FT felt the journal had become "tired and stale", which reveals more about them than it does any fault in the magazine. If you'd rather edit "The New Yorker", then please send them your resume.
Surely there are many other readers who will be similarly upset? I recognize that those who frequent the website are 20:1 in favor--is the general readership going to sound off in the same way? We'll see.
Can't wait for my first issue. I am a 30-ish, Catholic, mother-of-four (under the age of six) in the heart of liberal South Austin.
An Editor's responsibility, and one hopes vocation, is to, you know, e d i t. Edit the whole thing. Because a magazine IS a whole thing, more than the words alone. The typographical choices, and the final decisions on type, are evidence that paper is not simply a text carrier.
My only request is, in future, if you make other changes, think about NOT explaining them.
Thanks for the observations. While the positive comments are gratifying (more please!), negative feedback is very helpful at this stage.
One observation: I didn't say that the magazine had grown tired and stale. I said the layout had grown tired and stale.
Commentary recently did a similar upgrade, and I have found it refreshing. The variance from issue to issue and the stylistic flourishes are well integrated throughout the magazine.
One thing I've always wondered is why First Things has never included short fiction in its issues? Just not enough quality prospects? It might be one among the changes worth considering.
Thank you, sir, for your receptivity to comments from others even more self-assuredly purist (and stale?) than the old FT I love.
Point taken: I had indeed noticed that your explanatory piece said that it was only the layout that you felt had grown stale. I do believe that is what you thought--I just see evidence of something more than that at work.
As for raising "on a hilltop, the old banners of beauty in print"--somehow, the photos of Michael Astrue and the Hitchens brothers don't seem to me to fulfill the intention yet, nor do the images of Gutmann and Wagner on 30-31. Those pieces are not enriched or even complemented by the photos of the persons written about.
Particularly disappointing is the image on 75--I had come to expect that FT was a place where I could find intelligent criticism of Hollywood from time to time without having to consume any of its images.
(I also find the color ad on p. 13 to be ghastly, but that's not your work.)
Pages 21 and 88 are right on the mark, though. (I also loved the 1990s series of religious signs and wished that could have continued indefinitely.)
This will, I think, finally push me to renew my print subscription - I may be able to get the content for free in the online archives, but this overhaul makes me want to hold the magazine in my hand. It makes sense that greater attention to aesthetics (that is, sensual experience) would be the chief way for print to distinguish itself from the mountains of free electronically-delivered information available on the internet.
Kudos on the bold move.
As a FIRST THINGS reader (for eighteen years), here’s my opinion, for what it’s worth:
Kind of New Yorker-ish; but I liked and miss FIRST THINGS.
And the first thing I miss is the “tired and stale” cover. With a glance you knew what to expect. This gave the old cover a function and beauty analogous to the functional beauty of a flying buttress. The new cover seems without purpose.
FIRST THINGS’ once stated mission was “to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.”
Mission accomplished? Or perhaps lost?
Now there’s a need for FIRST THINGS “to preserve the high culture of intellectual journals?” With poetry, snap-shots, and crossword puzzles?
FIRST THINGS will bring back “long-form reporting;” revive “what was once the glory of American journalism;” pick up the “fallen standard of journalism;” and refuse “to accept the diminished condition of American print…???????” Was the old FIRST THINGS an example of the “diminished condition of American print.?”
Isn’t saving American journalism sort of like rearranging the furniture on the Titanic?
FIRST THINGS seems to have lost its way. Perhaps it was inevitable and unavoidable; but still, sad.
Regards,
Ray
P.S. Taking exception to the second iteration of FIRST THINGS does not imply any objection to the second day of Creation!
The photo of the Hitchens brothers is great--it adds to the review itself--, but the review title over it is visually confusing.
I don't really care for the sketches under The Public Square and While We're At It. And the contrast between these and the cover is striking--kind of like walking into your grandmother's house after a visit to the MOMA.
But what *has* to go is the quill on p. 17.
Longtime subscriber (wavered about renewal after the passing of Fr. Neuhaus) who just spent an hour with the new issue. Count me among the "conservatives by temperament" -- my first reaction was a mixture of alarm and disappointment. But I must say most of the changes seem OK -- certainly nothing as annoying as "Mitch Albom is an Idiot" or the large font text teasers a few issues back. BUT -- the glossy pages make reading an unpleasant experience! My beloved leather reading chair sits beneath a bright halogen lamp, and I hate the glare I'm getting -- don't know if I'll get used to that.
First, my apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Bottum. (I find I'm more error-prone in the rapid-fire internet/e-mail age, alas.)
Venturing into the glossy parts, I see the text highlighting is perpetrated there, albeit in somewhat subdued fashion (bottom of page, not too big). Not a subscription killer, but . . . must you?
I do like the cover. The old style always seemed too much of a Commentary knock-off anyway.
The non-glossy paper was really a much appreciated feature of First Things - glossy paper does indeed hurt the eyes and it also much less durable.
cover designs of The New Yorker. Which is to say that the new design evokes the
cloying aesthetic mustyness of pretentioness: a definite signal of the egregious
bad taste of our times. And as for the design of the pages between the covers, I find it to be less attractive as well although not as much so as I find the cover design.
I miss his First Things dearly...even though it was just a plain old magazine.
I think you guys hired too many recent college graduates because the periodical seems less unique by the day and more like one of those fashionable intellectual journals that seem heavy on fashion and light on the kind of written eternal wisdom that used to be the pretty pictures when RJN was in charge.
I'm sorry if that's harsh but it's the truth as I see it.
Anyway using tabloid style headlines rarely increases intellectual credibility and I think we have enough culture/big headline/"buzz" magazines to last aeons.
No, completely perfect, at least in concept. The multiple papers are a fantastic idea, preserving all the magazine has been and promising more. The Hitchens picture and the bugler are great; the Astrue pictures a little blah, aren't they?
The key to this redesign is the way it aims up instead of down. In fact, the articles are good, and the poetry is the best the magazine has ever had.
Of course, once upon a time, real journals didn't put authors' names on the cover--often didn't tell the names at all, for reviewers, especially. (Remember, that were the opening scenes in the brouhaha that eventually produced Newman's Apologia: Newman first had to find out that it was Charles Kingsley who had written the review that mentioned him.) Anyway, the appearance of names on covers was a magazining of journals--a movement of them in a popular direction.
But the mag is now so beautiful that it will be harder to give away.
Maybe I'll just rip the cover off.
I haven't been able to spend that much time with the current edition yet, but at least the paper is of high quality. I have read of some ink smearing, however. The color is nice at this point, but the verdict is still out.
Drop caps should not be indented; it leaves too much open space.
I always thought the cover was interesting, but now I realize (and miss) how excellent it was to have the entire table of contents on the front.
I don't like it.
"First Things also works to preserve the high culture of intellectual journals"
Not with those rude titles from a couple issues ago you don't. They attempted to be snarky--bad enough--but attained only clumsily stupid. (Another instance of some half-conscious reaching out towards Fox News fans?)
And certainly not with your blogging, your contribution to "a culture that is fading under pressure from the Internet, from the weak American financial situation, and, not to mince words, from the absurd decline of print standards in this country."
To gussy it up with glossy paper and pretty pictures is secondary.
P.S. I love the crossword puzzle! This is not an activity I would normally ever find time to do, but for some reason I couldn't resist yours (even though I can only manage the time for it in ten minute bursts). My young children seem to be taking a vested interest in my progress. I think it's helping them absorb the lesson that the printed word, the dictionary and the thesaurus can be way more entertaining than things that light, blink and bleep.
So, bravo on an excellent job. Would it be too presumptuous to claim that Fr. Neuhaus must be smiling down from Heaven in approval? (The presumption rests, of course, in the latter portion of the statement, rather than the former, of which there should be no doubt!)



