Original Publication Information:
Suedomsa the Magazine August 1997 Volume One, Issue
One
Smart ReMarx by Andrew Marx
Sign of the Times
Issues of Reader's Digest litter my floor.
I originally ordered the magazine on the chance that my winning entry
might be picked at random and that five million dollars would be mine to
share with the government. That was ten months ago and I don't pay much
attention anymore to how close I am to those millions. I consider
Reader's Digest to be a decent magazine and why shouldn't it join
the ranks of Details and Cosmopolitan that are strewn about
my apartment?
The reason, of course, is precisely because Reader's Digest is so
far from being what Details and Cosmo are. Forget quality
(or the fact that Reader's Digest is a collection, mostly taken
from other magazines. Magazines as a rule are collections of writings;
Reader's Digest is not far off in that respect.)
No, what makes Reader's Digest different is the intended audience;
middle-aged, middle-class, Judeo-Christian ethic America. Details has catered to a largely gay male audience, although it is
less obvious about it than magazines like Out or Genre. I
found the Borders Bookstore in Santa Monica put Details in the gay
section. I told the sales clerk that I never would have found it there.
He gave me a nasty, offended look like he personally had invented the
magazine classification system in that store and I couldn't have hurt him
more if I had told him one of his fake eyebrows was coming off. I have
also found Details in the pornography section of certain B
Dalton's. The closest Details has ever come to pornography was
running PETA ads. I think it is fine to leave Details in the men's
section next to Esquire and GQ.
As for Cosmopolitan, that magazine is more for the entertainment of
my roommates. I find the text so embarrassingly rank that I blush just
looking at the words on the cover. Reader's Digest appeals to the censor in me. The majority of the
articles highlight heroes and solutions. There are stories about
courageous firemen and grandfathers who rescue their drowning grandsons.
There are articles about the effects of secondhand smoke and living with
cancer (or someone who has cancer.)
More importantly, though, is what Reader's Digest doesn't have.
The magazine tiptoes around taboo issues like AIDS, abortion, education
and poverty. Once in a while, this world gets too despairing for me, and
I can pick up an issue of Reader's Digest and all is well
again.
If you de-emphasize the coming of the killer bees from South America.
It's worth having Reader's Digest around. Between the conservative
text and the contest for five million, it gives me some hope for the
future.
