Tuesday November 22, 2005

Who’s Next at Harper’s?

While Gawker’s mandate would seem to be to offer idle and uninformed speculation about absolutely everything, the team has thus far dropped the ball when it comes to handicapping the contenders for the top job at Harper’s, now that Lewis Lapham is stepping aside. Who knows why the G-Unit has failed to slap a poll up about this—too brainy for the site’s plummeting common denominator, perhaps?—but it’s kind of a big deal.

Lapham has been the editor for over two decades and has as good a claim as anyone—his grouchy, dadaist essays aside—to inventing the “front of the book.” The Harper’s Index and the upfront Readings section of primary sources set the stage for a thousand permutations that have included Spy, Maxim and everything in between. And Harper’s alums run magazines all over town. GQ’s Jim Nelson cut his teeth there, as did the New York Times Magazine’s Gerry Marzorati. So let’s have some irresponsible conjecture, dammit. I’ll start.

The ascension of Roger Hodge to deputy editor last year was interpreted by some as meaning that a line of succession was in place. At the time, Lapham insisted that he wasn’t going anywhere, but now he is, so maybe he’ll just turn the magazine over to Hodge. Bor-ing! That’s no way to get ink, although it seems somewhat plausible since Lapham is keeping his column. What outsider would want to take over if they didn’t get to pen the “Notebook” column as well?

Then there are, as I mentioned, the alums. Marzorati might be a candidate. Paul Tough, also of the Times Magazine, is likewise a contender. Named one of Ten Young Editors to Watch by CJR, Tough left Harper’s in the ’90s and has been a senior editor at This American Life. He’s also in his 30s, which might help rejuvenate the magazine and stem its circulation slide. Contributing writer Jack Hitt is another former staffer who might make a good fit. He also writes frequently for the Times Magazine and contributes to This American Life and his politics are decidedly left. Michael Pollan, meanwhile, is yet another vet who could bring some institutional continuity to the transition. Hired by Lapham in 1983, he led the development of the front of the book, including the introduction of the Index and Readings. He was executive editor when he left in ’90s and has since written several books.

And then there are my favorites: the longshots. How about Tom Frank? A frequent contributor, Frank is as close to a Little Lapham as you’ll find in these United States—both politically and stylistically—and his appointment would make pretty big news. Or how about everyone’s favorite generalist, intellectual magazine legend Kurt Andersen? This is the way publisher Rick MacArthur should go if he wants the magazine to be reinvented and revitalized, the way it was by Lapham 20 years ago. And even Gawker would have to cover that, right?

Am I missing someone? Are you someone I haven’t missed and you’d like to deny, deny, deny that you’d ever edit Harper’s? Know something I don’t know? (I’m sure you do.) Leave all that in comments.

Posted by jim at 11:33 AM ||