The New Playboy

Some months ago Playboy announced that they would no longer publish photos of nude woman and the magazine would be redesigned. Well, it's out now, and being a long-time Playboy reader and someone who worked for magazines for a long time, I was fascinated with what it would be like. So I grabbed a copy and have been poring over it. I must say I like it very much.

The first thing one notices when looking at the cover is that the phrase "Entertainment for Men" is gone (it is one of many things that did not survive the redesign). Also, the magazine is on thicker paper stock and is larger--about an inch wider than the last (which means the centerfold is a little longer and, yes, there is still a centerfold). The magazine feels, to the touch, like a literary review or specialty magazine.

Also note that the only copy on the cover is a text with an emoji, and the model, Sarah McDaniel, appears to be taking a selfie. Here is a play, I suppose, for younger readers. But here's what's interesting--once you open the magazine, it is not geared toward young people. I really don't know why men in their twenties would go for this, unless they have a thing for the 1960s Playboy.

No, this is not your father's Playboy, it's your grandfather's. The design is clean and with lots of white space, unlike the shift some years to a more ADHD-inspired layout. There are no jumps (in magazine parlance, that's when an article continues on a page deep in the back) and no tacky ads for "better sex" videos or pajamas of the month.

I also picked up a Maxim, which I stopped reading some years ago, and noticed they too had undergone the same shift (but they just fired their editor, so maybe they found it didn't work). While the new Playboy is not The Paris Review, it is somewhat like Esquire, circa 1965. And that's not a bad thing.

Here is what is still the same: the bunny hidden on the cover, articles on cocktails, where to drink in Havana, James Franco interviewing someone (this time TV writer David Simon), a celebrity interview (Rachel Maddow), an okay but nothing special short story, and three pictorials. Here's what's gone: the trademark first-page of the interview, with three photos of the subject on the bottom (that's been a staple for over fifty years), the Party Jokes on the back of the centerfold, the data sheet on the centerfold, the cartoons (!), and even the little Playboy bunny slug at the end of each article. The cartoons really seems like a major departure, as that was something very associated with the magazine (Hugh Hefner was a cartoonist himself). I can only imagine there are a cadre of cartoonists crying into their beer.

The magazine is laid out very simply. There are the requisite categories: movies, music (an article on Savages to keep current) video games, etc. They did manage to get a major current writer, with an excerpt of Karl Ove Knausgaard's My Struggle, Book Five (he describes masturbating for the first time, which is odd since he's and adult when he did it. I may have to read the whole thing to find out why).

As for the pictorials, they are not in the usual Playboy style. It is not classic pin-up style, and more akin to photographers like Terry Richardson. There is no airbrushing, and McDaniel, who is heterochromial, doesn't even wear makeup. The other pictorial is of a model taking pictures of herself, and the centerfold is Dree Hemingway, great-granddaughter of Ernest and daughter of Mariel. I have no idea if any of these women would have agreed to be photographed with full frontal nudity. At any rate, one does see a lot, just no nipples or lady parts. I'm sure we will see a lot of "arm bras" in the coming months.

I found it interesting that there is no editorial statement on the change. Nothing is heard from Hefner or the creative team. Instead, novelist Bret Easton Ellis basically makes the case for the switch. He is a few years younger than I am, so has the same experience with Playboy as the only way to see naked women during adolescence. Those times are gone: "What happens when sexuality is automatically available to us without investment? When a book or a record or a movie or a naked woman or five naked women or a naked woman engaging in a gangbang with five hung men is only a click away?"

Indeed, Playboy had to face it--they weren't the go to place for young men to get their jollies anymore. So they had to make changes or fold up their tent. I don't know if they will succeed, but I'm interested enough to keep on.