I'm new to Harper's, only a few issues in. Starting a new magazine is always a bit of a challenge, there is no familiarity to help guide me through the new issue. Which sections do I like? Which should I skip? With publications I've been getting for a while, it's a comforting routine to open, flip through, read/respond/be surprised. Harper's is hard, in that it's not very easy to categorize, and it comes on its terms -- not mine for sure. The articles are long. The essays are often kind of strange. I read the current issue, the lead story/essay wondering if I was supposed to laugh. The story about the cancer in the Tasmanian Devils was horrifying and edifying both. I got to an article by Donovan Hohn, looked at the title, "Falling, Confessions of a Lapsed Forest Christian," and moved on through -- too long, too personal, not for me. Then the page opened and I read a pull quote:
Lucifer falls, Alice falls, so does Icarus. Humpty Dumpty falls, Jack and Jill fall. The Titans tumble earthward for nine days straight.
I stopped and went back to the start of the article and read. I'd link to it, it's worth the time. But all I have is Harper's Magazine, index, no direct link for sure. Now, I understand the business of magazines, and I am supportive (at some reasonable level) about providing incentives for people to buy the actual pub, not just read the thing gratis online. Wired does this, the New Yorker does this, they are pretty clear about what/when/if something will at some point be linkable, and this predictability is fine.
Harper's has a different philosophy. Make the web experience as confusing as possible and if there is a link, good luck finding it. Harper's, find the middle road. Don't hide your content. There is no discontinuity between making money, having impact, being on the web.