Ads




Redesigning First Things

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.

Bookmark and Share

Comments:

5.14.2010 | 2:45am
Bret Lythgoe says:
First Things, is a wonderful magazine! Do wharever you want with the cover, it could be be blank for all I care, it's what's inside that's the treasure!
5.14.2010 | 5:20am
pdn Michael says:
Well, you guys would have to do a whole lot more (or I'd have to be earning a whole lot less) to get me to cancel. Keep sending 'em.
5.14.2010 | 5:41am
Mark Judge says:
Hated it for an hour. Then kinda liked it. Now really like it.
5.14.2010 | 6:16am
You deserve the credit, Mr. Bottum. I have received the updated Harvard Magazine, 02138, and found it to be too much in the image of the Entertainment Network. Even its dimensions are awkward. So your guidance of Mr. Blum must have brought out his best work.

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.
5.14.2010 | 6:23am
Jared says:
I love Mr. Judge's reaction. Even the very best of changes should be so wrestled with.
5.14.2010 | 7:16am
John says:
I'm with Mark. Initially I was sad to see the writing on the cover gone-I kind of liked being able to see what was inside. But I like the idea of artwork on the cover too. Still not sure I like the use of different paper in the middle but that's mincemeat. Overall, I like the formatting of the articles, the public square at the front, while we're at it in the back, and a few pictures. The one thing I do think I dislike-time will tell-is the first page of the essays being such large font. It looks kinda goofy.
5.14.2010 | 7:42am
Mr. Bottum-

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
5.14.2010 | 8:05am
Dear Mr. Bottum,

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
5.14.2010 | 9:34am
Thanks for all the comments so far. A nervous time for us, as it must be after any redesign.

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.
5.14.2010 | 9:48am
Kafbst says:
I'm pleased to read that my poor request for increased graphic content aligned with your editorial vision. I look forward to receiving my copy. Please tell your "internal objectors," though, that the wonderful journalism and new layout, however impressive, won't be responsible for my subscription renewal. The deal was sealed by the crossword puzzle.
5.14.2010 | 9:58am
Kafbst--I'd kiss you, if you were here. Or do a crossword puzzle with you. At one point in her fine editing career, our new associate editor Mary Ellen Kelly worked on crossword-puzzle magazines for a while, and she bravely took the lead on making it happen in our pages.
5.14.2010 | 10:05am
Craig Payne says:
Everything John said is exactly what I was thinking. Overall very good, kind of miss the feel of the pages, new format good, don't really like the big print on the first page of articles.

So, first reaction: It could have been a lot worse.

Second reaction: It's actually good.
5.14.2010 | 10:34am
Tom Sheridan says:
Crossword puzzles? My 88-year-old mum will love that!

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.
5.14.2010 | 10:49am
Paul Cryan says:
OUTSTANDING!
5.14.2010 | 10:52am
Steve Zelt says:
I would like to frame the cover on this issue. Can I get or buy a print of that? If not, then can I buy another copy and I'll use that.
5.14.2010 | 10:59am
My only complaint is that the ink smears a little on the glossy pages if you hold them for too long.

I like pretty much everything else though.
5.14.2010 | 11:12am
I suspect Mr. Bottum figured out that crosswords are the one thing that don't work well on the internet. Ever tried to do one on a laptop? But I have no cross words for the crossword. I may even find that FT has more use than ever before on a slow Saturday morning over a cup of coffee. FT has raised the level of the intelligent magazines once more. Bravo!
5.14.2010 | 11:51am
I cannot stand it. I received mine in the mail yesterday.

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.
5.14.2010 | 12:21pm
Like Steve Zelt, I too want to frame that cover.
5.14.2010 | 12:33pm
Joe Carter says:
I've uploaded a zip file that contains the cover image for anyone who'd like a larger version: http://firstthings.com/pdfs/newcover.zip
5.14.2010 | 12:41pm
Kate says:
I am a new subscriber, have not yet received my 1st issue, and I support the new design. My father and father-in-law are subscribers and I have always enjoyed the articles but the cover was a tad, blah. I like the simplicity of the new cover. It reminds me of the New Criterion but the illustration makes it more interesting. I hope all the covers follow a similar pattern. Different color perhaps for each issue but a nice illustration too.

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.
5.14.2010 | 12:52pm
Will says:
The magazine is now a pleasure to hold and behold. I'm very happy about the new design. I imagine that any negative reaction would be motivated by a fear that this new focus on aesthetics and content might detract from the latter. I trust this will not be the case. And once everyone sees this is true, opposition will fade. Beautiful work.
5.14.2010 | 1:09pm
J.W. Cox says:
My copy hasn't arrived yet in the mail.

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.
5.14.2010 | 1:19pm
Will says:
As a follow-up, while I do not agree with Andrew Ellison's general sentiment, I do hope that FT holds itself to the highest print editorial standards. The magazine should be a beacon of well-edited standard written English. Heaven knows the world needs that as much as anything.
5.14.2010 | 1:22pm
Mr Bottom explains why I only received two copies of 02138. If Mr. Blum was hired to repair the damage, I would have loved to see the result. I'm even happier to see him at First Things now.
5.14.2010 | 2:12pm
The new cover and layout are elegant; the articles appear to be mostly first rate. I like the logic of Reports, Essays, and Reviews. The Crossword is a fine bonus for we crossword types. In toto, bravo. My guess is that Fr. Neuhaus is smiling from his perch.
5.14.2010 | 2:32pm
Andrew Ellison & J.W. Cox:

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.
5.14.2010 | 2:41pm
Thomas S says:
Haven't read the issue yet, but I did color in the cover drawing.
5.14.2010 | 2:42pm
Dennis says:
I don't dislike it now as much as I did at first (particularly not having the contents on the front). I always thought of First Things as a "journal" rather than a mere "magazine", so I don't want to see it become too glossy or ephemeral loooking; thus, I'm glad you at least stuck with the rag paper and two column format for the middle section.
5.14.2010 | 3:57pm
Eric Milner says:
I haven't received the print version, but the cover looks nice and the sentiment and concerns you've expressed in the post are well received.

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.
5.14.2010 | 7:30pm
txw says:
My 4 year old daughter saw the photo on the last page and said, "I think she would be a good friend." Needless to say, I like the change.
5.14.2010 | 9:29pm
Mr. Bottom:

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.)
5.14.2010 | 10:13pm
Mike says:
I say "Magnificat" gets some of the credit here. Its publishers have understood from its inauguration the importance of those things described in Bottom's concluding paragraph. I wonder what percentage of First Things subscribers are also Magnificat subscribers. I'd lay 3/2 odds Bottom himself subscribes. Three cheers for both publications.
5.15.2010 | 7:40am
Dean says:
My "new" FIRSST THINGS arrived late yesterday afternoon and I fell in love with it this morning. The explanation for the change was as well done as the new design. I may even give the crossword a try.
5.15.2010 | 9:56am
Andrzej says:
I just hope the paper the articles are printed on in not glossy.
5.15.2010 | 10:57am
My quibble with the redesign is that it seems like an attempt to make FT something other than what it is. What makes First Things great is it's First Things-ness. Why try to make it look like a hipper version of The Weekly Standard?
5.15.2010 | 11:54am
Ars Artium says:
All of the enthusiasm for the new layout is contagious and I have decided to renew a print subscription (all three of which I cancelled because of indignation at the, in my opinion, offensive review of the posthumous Nabakov novel). My indignation has not subsided, especially since a past essay by Joseph Bottum proclaimed that after death our parents' honor is in their children's keeping. Apparently, the Nabakov family had not seen that essay and the principle was forgotten. In any event, the new cover is attractive and appealing enough to justify at least one renewal.
5.15.2010 | 12:08pm
Ian Corbin says:
Jody,

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.
5.15.2010 | 5:29pm
Ray says:
Mr. Bottom:

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!
5.15.2010 | 5:52pm
Giorgio says:
As Nero Wolfe would say, indicating complete approval, "Satisfactory, Jody."
5.15.2010 | 7:20pm
Micah Mattx says:
Love the cover. Crossword? Yes.

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.
5.15.2010 | 9:32pm
Edward says:
Dear Mr. Bottom:

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.
5.15.2010 | 9:59pm
Edward says:
Follow-up:

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.
5.15.2010 | 10:29pm
Andrzej says:
To Edward:

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.
5.15.2010 | 10:30pm
Dear Sir, FIRST THINGS ? I HAVE NOT HEARD OF THIS BEFORE. How much is is ? is it a monthly, twice monthly ?
5.16.2010 | 12:57am
Mike Linton says:
Ok Jody, I hate it. Hate it. When I write for First Things I want my name on the front cover. In really big print (can you get glow in the dark ink?). How am I going to impress folks hauling around that miserable pseudo-Matisse cover? Nope, won’t happen. Or casually leaving my copy in the faculty mail room? Right. Or on my mother’s coffee table? Beautiful photography, crosswords, poems, your great writing—so what. The only thing I ever did was save the covers. Now what I’m I going to do? It’s a personal catastrophe.
5.16.2010 | 4:31am
The new cover design is new for First Things, but is offputtingly reminiscent of the
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.
5.16.2010 | 7:09am
Jacob says:
I must confess I wish we had Father Neuhas' old layout back. You guys have kept a bit of his reasoned and absolutely necessary cynicism, but..
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.
5.16.2010 | 7:14am
jacob says:
Perhaps less original was the wrong thing to say..but a lot of us are so backwards we prefer that just one magazine doesn't try to Disney itself up to attract a larger audience.

Anyway using tabloid style headlines rarely increases intellectual credibility and I think we have enough culture/big headline/"buzz" magazines to last aeons.
5.16.2010 | 7:49am
JJ says:
Almost perfect.

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.
5.16.2010 | 7:55am
Steven says:
Let me add to the chorus saying that I love the re-designed First Things. The crossword is an excellent addition. Also, I found that, contrary to some others, I actually like the large font for the first page of the essays. The fact that it's only a paragraph or so of text makes it very easy for me to skim the start of it, which often drew me to turn the page and continue to read the rest.
5.16.2010 | 8:03am
Funny, Mike. I know what you mean about seeing one's name on a cover.

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.
5.16.2010 | 10:25am
Dale B. says:
I still have to fight my 18 year old son for the magazine when it comes! He and I agree: we appreciate the changes. He is off to Wheaton this August and has requested his own subscription.
5.16.2010 | 1:39pm
miasarx says:
I have been a subscriber for almost all of the years FT has been published. I was blown away by the beauty of the redesign. But the CROSSWORD!!!!!!!! I have such a built up felt need for a good crossword. And I've been boycotting the Times for years, and NYMagazine hasn't had a good one in years. So THANKYOU.

But the mag is now so beautiful that it will be harder to give away.

Maybe I'll just rip the cover off.
5.16.2010 | 5:00pm
Matt K says:
I am not thrilled with the changes. I have always felt that the rag paper was part of the distinctive character of the magazine. It showed that it was a notch above the National Review and other glossy publications. It was a pleasure to read, it would not come off on your fingers under any circumstances, and it was a pleasure to write in the margins. I feel that this has been lost with the glossy. I appreciate Mr. Bottum's attempt to retain the rag paper, but the two tone feel that results is even worse. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I currently feel that if there is going to be a redesign to glossy, the magazine should be all glossy.

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.
5.16.2010 | 6:01pm
Josh says:
I loved FT. Now I like FT. FT was becoming, to me, just a Catholic pseudo academic journal. That is why my subscription has not been renewed, but I still regularly come to the site--everyday in fact. Now, I might try FT again in print, but not because the cover has changed.
5.16.2010 | 7:39pm
John Cummins says:
The new cover is attractive but it's preferable to be able to see at a glance what's inside. The color & font sizes for titles and authors made for enough variety. 1000 votes for rag cover.

"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.
5.17.2010 | 1:02pm
Jeannine says:
I love the new format! It is beautiful, readable, and classy.
5.19.2010 | 6:33am
Janet says:
After the initial shock wore off, I have come to truly love every bit of the new design. Considering that Fr. Neuhaus is a singularly impossible act to follow, I think you are wise to change things up a bit, and make the magazine visually different while preserving its heart and soul. Is the new cover is a subliminal tribute to Fr. Neuhaus? For although he's lacking the Roman collar, the man on the cover puts me in mind of your illustrious founder -- perhaps it is something in the shape of his nose, or the curve of his eyebrow. And which two letters spring out from the redesigned logo? RN

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!)
7.19.2010 | 7:59am
I love the crossword, I love the new covers, I love the glossy pages and the photos and artwork, and I love the continued essays and comments covering issues in the public square, and you're certainly not a hippier version of The Weekly Standard! Keep this up. My only complaint: your note under this issue's crossword, says I can get the answers on firstthings.com/crossword, and I cannot find a link on your web pages. Keep up the wonderful work. I can wait till the next issue for my answers. Dorothy Ertell
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact