when Maxim means less (Maxim)

Member Name: brownp1

Product:	Maxim
Date:	05/07/01 (111 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: none

Disadvantages: cheap and nasty feel, poor quality journalism, no real babes

At 36 am I too old?

This is the question I have to ask myself after reading the last 2 issues of Maxim and finding them on the whole to be a pile of humourless trash am I too old, or too married to enjoy a lads mag?
My perusing of the mags in the newsagent I still find a lot to titillate and interest me in Loaded or FHM so the only conclusion I can draw is that, comparing them to top shelf publications, Maxim is the equivalent of Fiesta to Loaded’s Mayfair or FHM’s Penthouse i.e. in that in all aspects it lacks quality control. This comparison to porn mags I believe to be quite valid, as SEX is what sells both these types of magazines.

Looking at Maxim in more depth:

The cover:
The front cover of maxim features the compulsory scantily clad female, who in the last 2 issues I have singularly failed to recognise. This month its Lady Victoria Hervey – who? She also has the distinction of not being spectacularly attractive which surely is the role of the cover babe.

The opening salvoes
Readers letters – A pretty poor set, obsessed with the female form and with no sense of humour at all – if this is the standard of the readers its true that every magazine gets the readers it deserves (or should that be the other way round).
Short articles on the girl in the new magnum ad, catapulting dead horses, DIY rockets and computer generated women all very poor / sick
Better is News of the Weird – highlighting strange acts from around the globe, a Q&A page and a joke page.
And Finally Nightschool which boasts of extra tuition for the advanced lover but is actually just an excuse to show pictures of women in underwear.

The features
This is what turned me right off in the last issue due to a pathetic article on lesbians, and while nothing plumbs these depths the standard doesn’t exactly break new ground
This issue features:
Girls: the 10 beat sets of legs, and
articles on Susan Ward, Jakki Degg and Lady Hervey. No I don’t know who these are either and the standard of journalism revolves around asking questions about blowjobs and nude scenes.
Adventures: An article on Alligator hunting is fun, but the feature on natural disasters has been done better elsewhere
The odd: Articles on a transvestite bank robber and top 20 required inventions (voice activated undoing bra is #1) don’t qualify as exactly stimulating reading

Fashion & reviews
Surprisingly these are well thought out, and give sound advice on clothes, books, films, music & games with a hit miss maybe voting system. Having read the rest of the magazine you may wonder about the editor’s dubious taste but all points are intelligently argued.

The last word
More short articles including “Loose Cannons” a thought provoking feature detailing how celebrities hit the self-destruct button which last month featured Frank McAlvennie, and this month Bobby Fischer.

So what’s wrong with the magazine? The major complaint is the “cheapness” of the magazine. This is meant to be a quality publication yet the standard of journalism wouldn’t be acceptable in a sixth form magazine, the depth of investigation is minimal, picture styling and layout is basic it assumes that all we want is cheap thrills without having to turn our brain on. I believe it is the top selling lads mag which maybe shows that the editor knows his market but to paraphrase a popular expression – just because a million flies like a pile of cow dung, its still a pile of s**t.

If you want sex have the honesty to get a top shelf magazine, otherwise get Loaded or FHM which actually have an amount of quality in the journalism and presentation.

Just in case you’re wondering why I have taken 2 issues to come to these conclusions I accepted a special offer to receive 3 issues for 1p each and on readi
ng them this penny looks to be the right price rather than the rather expensive £3 cover price.

Summary: