02138

Hmmm.

Yesterday in the mail I got a free copy of the premier issue of a new magazine called 02138.  Subtitle is "The World of Harvard."  (Harvard's zip code is 02138.)  When I was still at law school -- the day of law school graduation I think -- there was a flier about it in our mailboxes, saying it was coming that fall, but I guess it got delayed by a year.  I can't imagine it's easy to get a magazine off the ground and find advertisers and everything.  Sometime earlier in the year I exchanged e-mails with one of the people there, who wanted to know if I was interested in being one of the bloggers on their website (I wasn't, but it was nice that they thought of me), and there's a kinda-snarky but not unfair and not terribly objectionable blog entry about Anonymous Lawyer on one of the blogs on their website.

I'm really turned off by this magazine, and I'm not sure I can completely articulate why.  I'll try anyway.  The whole premise of this magazine seems to be that there's something uniquely special about Harvard and the people who go there.  That's really arrogant.  The founder's letter on page 10 says: "Welcome to 02138, the magazine for the Harvard sensibility....  As Harvard graduates, we share cultural DNA.  We are connected not only by our interest in our alma mater but by our interest in each other: classmates, friends, colleagues, competitors. Our mission at 02138 is to track the Harvard tribe and to look at the world through the lens of Harvard -- with intellectual rigor and a critical eye."

Well, I may be interested in my classmates, friends and colleagues.  But this magazine isn't really about them.  The issue has a list of the 100 most influential Harvard alumni.  6 of them are dropouts, which I thought was interesting.  48 are alumni of Harvard College.  16 are alumni of the Law School.  I barely feel any special affinity to fellow Law School alumni, let alone alumni of Harvard College or any of the grad schools I didn't go to.  My Princeton alumni magazine is cool because of the class notes section where I can read about people I actually know, doing things (like getting married) that aren't reported elsewhere and that I wouldn't otherwise know.  With or without 02138, I know who Bill Gates is and what he's up to.  Maybe if the magazine was talking about non-celebrities, people doing cool things I wouldn't otherwise know about, it would be interesting.  But it's playing in the world of celebrity, and if I'm looking for an article about, say, awesome political operatives, or terrific new books, these aren't things where it makes any sense to only tell me about the people affiliated with Harvard.  Is anybody characterizing information in their mind like this?  There's an article about the '08 Campaign Dream Team of Harvard alums.  Mostly the article makes me wonder is who the other people out there are who didn't go to Harvard, and whether this team would beat them or not.  It's like a weird novelty magazine for a made-up interest group.  Like if there was a magazine for people with 3 vowels in their first name.  I probably feel a little more affinity for Harvard graduates as a group than I do for people with 3 vowels in their first name, but I'm not sure it matters -- if there are interesting things to say about famous people, that's great, and maybe this magazine will do that, but the mere fact that someone went to one of the Harvard grad schools doesn't necessarily make me care.

But that's not the entirety of it.  Because the magazine for people with 3 vowels in their first name wouldn't make me feel icky to have it on my coffee table.  But this sorta would.  I wouldn't want to put out the attitude that I think there's something special about me just because I went to Harvard for law school, and I would expect that anyone who does want to put out that vibe is kind of a jerk.  There are six subscription cards in the magazine.  Six issues for $36.  I just can't imagine who would subscribe to this.  (Also, six dollars for a magazine is pretty expensive.)

The ads in the magazine are almost comically upscale.  Just flipping through, in order: Polo, Lux Bond & Green (jewelry and watches), Marquee Concierge ("a global network of luxury lifestyle specialists"), Bank of NY Private Wealth Management, Marquis Jet Card (private jet service), AIG Private Client Group, Glenmorangie whiskey, Wilmington Trust, BMW 335i Coupe, Brooks Brothers, British Airways Business Class, Neuberger Berman money management, POM (pomegranate tea), Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto (the Harvard of Canada?), eos luxury airlines.

I understand why, from a business perspective, this is an audience advertisers would want to reach.  And I guess I can see that there are probably people out there who find this magazine appealing, and really want to feel like part of a Harvard community and read about celebrities who happened to go to Harvard.  I just feel like the whole thing is kind of icky and elitist and unpleasant.

In all fairness, this is before reading any of the articles.  So maybe I'm just prejudging this thing based on the concept and not giving it a chance.  But, as opposed to Aaron Sorkin's tv show, which I
was rooting for myself to like, I thought my initial feeling that this is icky was worth blogging about.

Updated to add: I'm reading it now.  Page 51, introducing the Harvard 100 list: "Before long, we realized that we had started dividing everyone we met, read about, saw on TV, and heard about at dinner parties into two categories, 'Harvard,' and 'not Harvard.'"

The magazine is very pretty, lots of very nice photos, and some of the articles are interesting, but the attitude is really a turn-off.  Harvard's not that special.

Comments

[ASSociate]

"seven figure book deal"

Really? Is that including the two after the decimal? I've negotiated a few book deals, so I know the money involved. If you got seven figures, your agent deserves some serious kudos. I'm not saying this as a dig against you. I really like your writing and bought you book. However, you (a) aren't really famous - selling books just by putting your name on the cover; and (b) you are a first-time-author.

By the way, I agree with your view of the mag. I was sent a copy as well and think it really gives Harvard alum a bad name. I dont think I ever dropped the "H-bomb" in my life. I'd rather be known for my accomplishments, not where I went to school.

[Jeremy]

Shows how carefully I read. No, I didn't get seven figures. That would be insane. My agent deserves some serious kudos anyway.

[Catherine]

Wow. 1) That person who wrote that "review" sounds jealous. 2) That blog hasn't been updated since that post? 3) I went to Michigan (twice). There are people who went there who have the same attitude about Michigan that you are trying to describe in this post. There are people who went to the University of Miami at Ohio that have this attitude. There are just generally people who have an attitude. They have attitudes like that about their cars, their houses, their spouses, their kids, what jewlery they wear, what clothes they wear, where they bank, and where they vacation. Which makes the magazine you describe perfect for people who have that attitude. But it shouldn't give Harvard a bad name any more than than the people who burn couches after every Ohio state football game (win or lose!) should give Ohio state a bad name.

The interesting thing, I think, is that these people, the ones with the attitude problem, are the ones you stereotype (in the "sterotyping comes from somewhere" sort of way) in AL. I work in a big law firm, I generally like my job a lot and I like the people I work with, but I know people who make up the characteristics of the people you write about. Sounds like this magazine is feeding into its own sterotype, one the second issue of the magazine will probably rail against. Vicious cycle and all.

I'm not sure what my point is. I'm going back to billable work now.

[Sean M.]

You're nicer than I am, Jeremy. I thought the review was needlessly mean.

"How dare the law blogger who didn't practice law get a book deal," seemed to be the subtext. "He's not /really/ one of us."

Ass.

[ASSociate]

Not to be mean, but the one issue I have always had with your writing is that you never really worked as an associate. It is the one defensable criticisim in the post. I'm not sure that anything you write about would be any different, but knowing you never really worked at a firm undercuts a lot of your credibility.

Perhaps you should take an associate job for a year or so just to add some credibility. I'm sure your publisher has suggested that. It would make you much more marketable as an author.

(I know my spelling is terrible.)

[Jeremy]

Of course I'd have more credibility writing about law firms if I'd worked at one for more than a summer, no question. And if I was hoping to make a career out of writing about law firms and the law -- especially in a non-fictional way -- I'm certainly underexperienced.

But for what the book is -- satire, fiction, not trying to be an expose about anything -- I'm not sure it matters, reactions to the book have been good, and in any case it's already written and even if it would have made sense to spend more time at a firm before writing it, it's done. I don't expect the next thing I write will have anything to do with law firms -- I don't have anything else to say about law firms, in part because my experience is limited, but also because I'm not actually interested enough to want to spend more time in that world. If I was looking to carve out a niche as a writer of law-firm-world stuff, then sure, more experience would be a must. But that's not what I hope to be able to do. And so I don't think it would make me more marketable, beyond this book.

And, honestly, even for this book, I think there's a marketing hook that would say this is interesting precisely *because* I didn't spend more time at a firm -- "people thought Anon Lawyer was real, look how he was able to capture this world with only three months...." Certainly the NY Times piece on the blog took that angle.

At one point I talked to my publisher about going to work at a firm for a little while, just to get some more material/inspiration -- I was the one who wanted to do it, and he talked me out of it, not that I'm sure a firm would have hired me knowing I was working on a book.

In any case, I think your comment is legitimate, and if I was trying to write real stuff about how things really are at law firms, sure, and if I wanted to keep writing about law firms, absolutely. But I hope I get to write about some other stuff instead.

[ASSociate]

I'm glad you took my comment in the nature it was intended. I'll look forward to your future topics. What is next? I would bet IBers have a lot of material.

[Eddie]

F&^% Harvard.

[Theresa]

Are you even just a little peeved that a law blogger who is obviously a current or recent student at HLS is trying to criticize you for writing a law blog based only on your experience as a recent student at HLS?

[Jeremy]

Just quickly re: Theresa's comment, nah, I don't think it invalidates the comment just because he's just a student or recent grad -- unless he's also trying to sell a book about law firms based on his experiences, I don't know that it really matters. But maybe you're thinking something I'm missing.

[ASSociate]

Well, I guess I should respond and identify myself somewhat. I'm not a HLS student. I have actually been practicing in NYC for several years. I don't have a blog or any plans for a book. Perhaps I should. I'm actually a fan of your writing and have been reading your stuff for a little over a year. In fact, I started reading the archives of the AL blog while stuck in a file review in CA. I'm just being a bit of a critic - not trying to be mean and probably responding to a post a few weeks ago that your publisher was wondering why the book wasn't selling as well as expected. I'm just adding my hypothesis.

[anoynymous]

All of you Harvard alumni, the double Michigan alum, and the author of this blog have atrocious grammar and spelling. All of you should go back to middle school. Oh, and "ASSociate," it's "defensible," not "defensable." U of M grad, didn't you learn not to end a sentence with a preposition ("against")? No wonder they say lawyers can't write; I guess Harvard and Biglaw don't take writing samples seriously. For those of you who hold yourselves out as writers, the mistakes are even more atrocious.

[anon]

6:30 -- agree with some of your post but you seem to have misspelled anonymous.

[Theresa]

It's just that I think the "you never worked in a firm so you don't have credibility to satirize law firms" angle is totally bogus. No one dogs Jon Stewart for satirizing Bush just because he's never run for Congress. Satire is satire - if anything, I think the fact that you're able to get this much material as an outsider is just more commentary on how ridiculous the corporate law firm culture really is.

[canada private jet service]

your site is very nice and useful for me, I bookmarked your blog