May I totally gay out on you for a minute? There are two Esquires, at war with each other. There is the magazine that published the Roger Ebert profile, which is, by all accounts, amazing. (I can't read it yet because I don't have any time for a meltdown right now!) Then there is the magazine that is producing "Inside Their Olympics: Get All-Access Analysis from Lovely Athletes at the Winter Games (Easier on the Eyes Than Costas, Eh?)," starring "North America's Loveliest Olympians," which, wow, seriously, stab yourselves, your ironic Mad Men shtick is not actually ironic. I think it is this latter Esquire that is giving away clothes today.
"The gray suit is a sartorial staple, and it's the expert tailors at Hugo Boss that hammer home that point," goes the advertorial copy Esquire, in a sentence that simultaneously blows and enlimpens (not a word!) the mind.
Suit value: $1195.00. No purchase required! And other conditions! "Winners will be selected in a random drawing from among all eligible entries received on or about 4/1/10. Canadian winners will be required to correctly answer a mathematical testing question as a condition of receiving a prize."
(Yes, it's the always amusing Canadian sweepstakes laws at work.)
So: Hugo Boss? I mean, fine, this is an article of business attire, and in our society, which despises nudity, people must wear clothing, especially while practicing business. (Even in Canada.)
But right now, pretty much every decent winter suit is on sale for 75% off right now. So anything made of wool can be had for less (often far less) than $1200, whether it is Zegna or Neil Barrett or Paul Smith or anything (by which I mean, pretty much everything) that is better than Hugo Boss. That a (FREE!) not-so-great $1200 suit is supposed to be candy-bait to Esquire readers speaks poorly of exactly who the advertorial staff thinks are Esquire readers. (Particularly with the ALL-CAPS on TWELVE-HUNDRED-DOLLAR. I know, I know: I am a homosexual who lives in Manhattan, but when I hear "$1200 suit," all I can think is, "Uh huh? You mean like at Men's Wearhouse or whatever?")
The Esquire reader should be turning his nose up at this suit, in particular because he is told in every single issue what suit he should buy (usually incorrectly, to be fair) and exactly how he should roll up his sleeves (wait, that's GQ, sorry) and which cufflinks are for wearing after 6 p.m. The Esquire reader should use this Hugo Boss suit to wipe his bottom, not to put on the outside of his nudity while in an office environment, presumably only to remove it before his afternoon squash appointment.
The Roger Ebert profile is fantastic except for a single sentence where they mention that his legacy is written in Times New Roman. I'm all, "Ugh! Can't a man at least get some Garamond? FOR HIS LEGACY??"
That surprised me too, but then I thought: ah well, dude probably feels like he has better things to do with his time than constantly be re-setting the default font.
As a rule, I do not trust the recs of lifestyle mags. Until recently one of my best friends was an assistant beauty editor at a prominent lifestyle publication and she talked about how basically all copy was advertorial. My favorite was their "green" issue, which featured a variety of beauty products that were not organic.
Possibly related: I hear a lot of people go to the Internet for advice now? And this is causing magazines a problem?
As an Esquire subscriber (non-gay, Boston) I think this is closer to who we really are, despite the nonsense in the magazine with $10,000 watches and $500 jeans. I do own one Paul Smith suit but I got that in a sale.
I kind of want to win this, just so I could wear the suit around and say things like, "Yeah, like I'm going to spill coffee all over this TWELVE-HUNDRED-DOLLAR SUIT? COME ON!"
Like this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTJpLBXGBkM
You should deputize Balk for the meltdown; there is something in that Ebert profile for him.
Roger Ebert is a wonderful Twitterer.
Isn't the whole proposition behind the existence of Esquire that there is a target reader who enjoys both moving pieces about Roger Ebert and pictures of scantily clad sexy lady athletes? Was there not a whole category of this magazine once? (See for instance Playboy's heyday, in which interviews with Henry Kissenger and stories by Arthur C. Clarke cheerfully coexisted with tits.)
Obviously, this reader may not exist anymore, which no doubt will cause Problems. My dad used to get Esquire when I was a kid, and I remember loving the Dubious Achievement Awards (that was how I learned about Elaine's! from the headline "And then we all went to Elaine's to be executed!"); he cancelled after the issue with the cover story "Your Wife: An Owner's Guide." This was, you know, in the '80s! So, yeah, Problems. But it doesn't seem like a new problem.
I subscribed to Esquire in the 80s because it genuinely was Playboy for people that really do read it just for the articles. Then Maxim and Stuff came along and split the difference on the level of nudity and lowered the reading level to about fifth grade. I miss the Esquire of the 80s and the Dubious Achievement Awards in particular.
a target reader who enjoys both moving pieces about Roger Ebert and pictures of scantily clad sexy lady athletes? Was there not a whole category of this magazine once?
Vice is kind of working this model now, mutatis mutandis.
Aren't all of their models about 16 though?
I read Esquire and I don't own a suit and I don't have 1200 dollars. If anybody here wins that shitty suit, I would be happy to take it off their hands before they wipe their ass on it! I am picky, but I am not Manhattan homosexual picky! (I wear "button-down shirts")
Also, judging from the Letters to the Editor section, the Men Who Read Esquire basically follow everything the editors and writers say as if it is the Bible or Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance or Tom Chiarella's latest bit of "muscular prose" (since these things, in the Esquire-verse, are all basically equivalent), so even if this advertorial contradicts something else in the magazine, that does not make it wrong, it just means that God works in mysterious ways.
Okay, I'm off to read the new issue of Playboy while I eat lunch (this is not a joke! the one with Kelly Bensimon on the cover! I'm kind of worried about how I will keep my food down!)
Did I miss a "button-down shirt" memo somewhere? Something is happening and it is happening without me.
This, no?
Thank you, Dorothy.
I live to serve, m'dear!
I don't think you'll have a breakdown. It's touching, but ultimately leaves you hopeful.
I don't know. I was pretty bummed out when I finished it. The phrase "dying by increments" near the end really fucked with me.
Maybe it was just me then, but Ebert is so freaking upbeat! The super bummer part for me was where he got all upset about Siskel. But I went in expecting a doom and gloom "He's dying!" sobfest, and that's not really what it was at all. At least to me.
and where is Mary HK Choi to consult on this matter?
Srsly. I often ask myself that question.
Choire, can you explain to me why Hugo Boss suits are bad? Help me acquire a more discerning eye! (Mr. Mason has a Hugo Boss suit in this price range and looks nice in it but now I feel sad and ashamed.)