Toronto Life isn't usually associated with smart ideas... its voice is certainly bratty enough that Toronto Life must think itself sharp... its "genius" doesn't usually surpass Spy magazine ol' schtick, and that got tired fast 20 years ago. The "new" Toronto Life believes its youth in leau of experience is the dawn of brilliance, whereas the magazine isn't breaking ground anywhere new and keeps crashing with aloof mistakes in both the editorial and art departments.
I debated not publishing the comment because it seems a tad bitter and doesn't back up its claims, but to each their own opinion, right?
I've heard the "it's skewing young" argument a few times now (which I know Sarah Fulford disagrees with), but shouldn't that be considered a good-ish thing? The complaint I heard most often about the John Macfarlane version of the mag was that it was too old-money, old-establishment Toronto.
So, this is my invitation to all of you to weigh in – let's get a conversation going about what makes Toronto Life a good and a not-so-good magazine. What works; what doesn't work? Don't be shy! (Please keep it civil, though.) If this "crowd critique" is successful, I just might make it a regular feature of this blog, because I think we can all learn a lot about how to be better editors by critiquing the magazines we read. Let the debating begin!
[Be sure to check the comments both on Masthead's site and at Dream Job TK's home base.]
