During the 1980s and 90s Harpers decayed badly from a journal of literature and opinion into a collection of short pieces and meaningless charts- sort of a journal for the literary pretentious with a short attention span. During the late 90s and the early part of this century, an effort was made to recreate the old Harpers.

Gone now are the annoying fragments and pointless tables, but the quality of the writing is still variable. At its best, Harpers still trails far behind The Atlantic, and at its worst it's pitifully sophmoric. I'll try it again in a few more years.

I used to be a subscriber and an avid reader. Recently, perhaps in the last two years or so, the quality of the writing has become rather poor. The selection of articles is uninteresting, and sometimes half the articles themselves are so poorly written as to be unreadable. The fiction is simply mediocre, and the entire magazine seems to be infected with editor Lewis Lapham's shrill and ever-growing Notebook (does the man ever have anything interesting or original to say?). In short, Harper's is not the magazine it once was. I would suggest the Atlantic Monthly if you want a magazine that is interesting, informative, and well-written, cover to cover.

I ordered Harper's from Amazon nearly a year ago and I have come to treasure each issue for its unique blend of essays, art, and literary criticism. My subscription has become a de facto extension of my liberal arts education, as the magazine's pages are graced with politics, history, literature, and the arts.

Each issue features an essay from editor Lewis Lapham, an essayist of the same caliber as Gore Vidal. Lapham's style and vocubalary are extraordinary, and his writing is often laced with biting satire.

The magazine is illustrated with contemporary art from galleries across the United States, and includes informative features like the "Harper's Index" and the "Readings" section (garnered from documents in the public domain). Each issue usually includes two serious book reviews, sometimes stretching across several pages of small, dense type.

A subscription to this indispensible magazine will enlighten and entertain, equipping the reader to understand the contemporary world.

I was bored by this magazine. The artistic analysis and views were useless to me. I have a feeling a small group of people into arts and culture would love it. Not for a casual reader hoping to be entertained.

I've been subscribing to Harper's for years. In fact, I started after reading editor Lewis Lapham's "Money and Class in America: Notes and Observations on our Civil Religion" and at least one other book, a collection of his essays.

First, Lapham's "column" at the beginning of each issue I cannot recommend enough. In the case of the recent Iraq war, for example, Mr. Lapham had the guts to stand up against it. And he did so in an eloquent and erudite way, less volatile than any stand I was able to publicly make.

The rest of the content is the best I've ever read in an American periodical. For those who refer to Harper's as "leftist," I'm forced to disagree. There have been articles that are not remotely "leftist," with some of which I happen to agree. But most would consider most of the material "liberal."

(While I'm not much of a short story reader, those who read them in this magazine say they're the best.)

Thanks so much, Mr. Lapham, for your erudite commentaries on Iraq, on George W., on 9/11, and on countless other subjects. I look forward to each issue.