Why is it that we don't write smart?

I met up with T today. Good to catch up after not having seen him since, LAST YEAR.
Over sandwiches and coffee, we wondered about the state of writing in Singapore.
Essentially, why is it that we don't write good?

Good is subjective. For me, I like witty, funny, crisp writing that makes me think, that makes me laugh, that makes me want to live that life. I mean this with regards to columns especially.

I must say I've never really read much of that from our shores.

I'm not talking about newspapers so much, as I know the purpose of newspapers (at least this one) is to cater to a broad market, to write at a level so as not to alienate the population. (which also does mean the need to explain almost every little thing eg blogs = weblogs= online diaries)

But why don't we have magazines that are more page after page of glossy pictures? Magazines that require more than just 10 minutes of a quick browsethrough while standing at the bookstore?

T used the example of GQ as good writing, but I like Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, Gourmet, Vogue (especially the Food section). Magazines here tend to skim the surface, keep things trivial and relatively non-controversial. Even the columns aren't terribly exciting to read. It's like the columnists hold back from revealing anything juicy. I guess Singapore being the minute country it is, someone's bound to wonder if he or she is the person the columnist is talking about. I guess that's what psuedonyms are for.

I'd like to read a local magazine that
1) doesn't use the lazy question-and-answer format. There is absolutely no point in that unless your questions are witty.
It doesn't work when you say:

MagName: So, tell us about your new album.
BandThat'sProbablyNotBoringButSureSoundsBoring: Oh it's something that we're boring boring boring boring boring the socks off you....

MagName: Cool. So can I ask you another boring question?
Band: ......

I think q&a only works on something like the article I'd linked to some posts ago, (read it again here) where Daniel Handler interviewed Jack Black. Now that's an interesting Q&A to read.

2) Doesn't always ask the same questions

3) Doesn't pander too much to advertisers and feature a whole story on one advertiser, disguised as a story but actually is nothing more than a hugeass ad.

4) Doesn't highlight information. Literally.
One eg is Self. I used to read this US magazine regularly, then they had a makeover and decided that they would highlight information for the reader, as if we couldn't already read those snippets of information ourselves, and had to have the yellow attract us to it. It's kinda like duh flashbacks in movies, like Cellular, obnoxious voice-overs in documentaries on Animal Planet or those episodes of TVShowX which simply piece together scenes from previous episodes as the main characters tell each other "remember when...?"

5) Use clean font and good paper. And don't space out their paras and columns too much. Also, don't clutter the page too much with ads, like Today, where sometimes you just can't tell if it's a picture that goes with the story, or an ad.

6) Don't promise too much on your front page. Recently saw an old copy of Female where the front page blurbed an interesting-ish story. Turned to it and it was just a para that really wasn't worth reading at all.

7) I'm tired of celebrities on the front cover. Mostly cos it's always the same pp - fann wong, fiona xie. just use a model already. (and on that note, when doing the cover of a magazine that's about health and exercise, the model should preferably look somewhat athletic and not look like all the exercise she does is posing in front of a camera)

ohsobitchytoday

Listening to Matthew Ryan - Return To Me