Springing Forward with Six New Magazine Covers

Hi. It's been a while since I've been here. That's because I've been having a tremendous New York depression adventure!

But these new issues—well, their covers—are forcing me out of my silence. I mean, have you seen these things? So I'm going to write brief, snarky comments about a few covers, and I'll hope you'll humor me by pretending this is a real post. Cool?

Lucky

Perhaps it's because of my advanced age, but I do not aspire to look "So. Damn. Cute." You know who is "so. damn. cute."? My cat. Except I would say "so damn cute," because that thing with the periods was over in like 2009.

Glamour

Hunger Games and "Acne Smackdown": is Glamour going for the teens? Kudos to the Glamour staff for finding an actress whose face hasn't yet adorned a million glossies (ahem, InStyle); no kudos for the word "ballsy." Bravery has no genitals!

Cosmopolitan

You get the feeling Cosmopolitan would have stuck that pink "25 Fun, Free Dates" bubble right over Megan Fox's face if they thought they could get away with it. Way, way too much going on here, and it's all distracting me from what really matters, which is—duh!—trying to figure out who has the hottest butt in Hollywood. 

Bazaar

Three things:
1. Angelina Jolie did it better.
2. What better way to exemplify "Fabulous at every age" than by putting a 28-year-old on the cover?
3. I really hope "10 New Looks that Matter" includes an explanation of why they matter, because that will probably be the most hilarious thing I read all year.

Elle

I like to think I speak for the entire world when I say, "Was this really necessary?"

It's not that pregnant women aren't lovely or that they shouldn't be on magazine covers. It's that this pose has been done to death. It's that a pregnant woman posing nude feels remarkably similar to plus-size models posing nude, which is itself an uncomfortable mélange of sexualization and stylists just throwing up their hands in frustration. It's that fashion magazines apparently live in a world where clothes for non-sample-sized women just don't exist—except, oh look, they do! Which means this cover is really just another naked, Photoshopped female body on display in a cynical ploy for cash. 

I do, however, admire the juxtaposition of "Change your look instantly" with Simpson's burgeoning belly, because hello! Pregnancy is a great way to change your look. You know, when eye shadow and some new shoes just won't do...

(If your blood pressure can handle reading a more serious—but still snarky!—take on this cover, I liked this Dallas Observer post.)

And finally:

InStyle

Have you ever thought, "Gosh, I wish there were a major media outlet covering that little-known actress Jennifer Aniston. What's up with her love life? Does she work out? I wonder if she has opinions about those popular denim trousers!" I sure haven't, but apparently those people exist and they're buying this issue. I will not be among them.

What do you think about these covers? Anything good inside these issues?

Comments

[Theresa]

Honestly?! I laughed out loud!! I have been a great buyer of women's magazines until I got really fed up with exactly you are describing in this post: the people who don't really matter talking about denim jeans and the 425th diet! And you don't even have a cover you REALLY want to have displaying in your shelf! Of course your words are a little rude and not nice, but at least you are honest and say what a lot of people think! Thank you for that!
Yours, Theresa

P.S. This is why I started an own magazine with my sister which is only online and has a totally totally totally unknown model in a paper dress on cover Issue 1 ;)

[Jacqueline]

So glad you're back! Hated the Lucky cover -- is this the first they've done with an actual background? It's hideous. While I do appreciate Glamour choosing a relatively less-popular cover model, I still don't like the styling. A solid background always looks better; these are just distracting.

Another observation: Rachel Bilson, Megan Fox, and Mila Kunis have virtually the same hair on their respective covers.

And the Jessica Simpson cover -- there are no words. Yeah, she looks great, but it totally lacks creativity.

[Debra Snider]

You know what really bugged me about the Simpson cover? The huge contrast between her photoshopped perfection on it and her realistic double chin, swollen arms, and overall heftiness in the candid snaps one sees of her. If we think pregnancy is beautiful, how about letting it be what it is?

Great to have you back, even in abbreviated form!

[MM Curator]

I've missed you!! As usual, you're spot-on. I love how you point out, more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could, what's disturbing about ladymags. :) It's like I have the same thoughts but they're all murky and jumbled in my head, and you explain them perfectly.

Two things in this post made me laugh out loud - "What better way to exemplify 'Fabulous at every age' than by putting a 28-year-old on the cover?" (Bazaar) and "Change your look instantly" in the case of Elle. The thing that struck me most was the Photoshopping done on Jessica Simpson - I was like, where the hell are her stretch marks?! Not all women get them with pregnancy (a good friend of mine who had a boy a few months ago had not a single mark!) but still, she definitely had some retouching done. As for whether there's anything decent in these particular issues, I haven't gotten around to reading most of them yet (admittedly, I subscribe to all of the ones above except Cosmo - these mags are such a guilty pleasure for me!) but I will say that Lucky had a lovely spring shoe guide - many of the ones shown were a little too pricey for me but were nice to drool over, especially the wedges/espadrilles. And they had a good Paris shopping guide, which, again, isn't quite realistic for me right now but gives me something nice to dream about.

Please write more frequently!!!

[Jaycee]

I HATE HATE HATE Bilson's dress. Even if yellow were her color, no woman should be caught dead in a dress cut like that. And the matching sandals made me immediately think of Elizabeth Wakefield coordinating her barrettes with her shirt.

No complaints about the Jennifer Lawrence cover. She always looks good.

Another Cosmo over with SEX in the top-left corner. Yawn.

There never really is a good Bazaar cover. Every headline could apply to every issue.

The naked pregnant woman thing got old after that one episode of SATC.

One day there will be a magazine cover that says "JENNIFER ANISTON: 37 YEARS AFTER BRAD!"

[AnnJ]

OMG Jaycee what can I add. I think you channeled my exact post. That Lucky cover was hideous in more ways than I can count.
I miss my lady mags from the 80's and 90's before Photoshop. Not that they weren't unrealistically beautiful, but at least they had pores.
I am so glad you posted. I have missed you.

[Alex]

That "So. Damn. Cute." thing is so damn annoying!!! People think writing that way is cool - it is just dumb.

[boots Australia]

Great post! I really love all the cover except the one with Jessica. Nice job!

[jos]

Who are their target audience anyway? Those images are not appealing to me was a woman. Perhaps if I was a heterosexual man with a Photoshop/ugly dress fetish...

[comment]

The Jessica Simpson cover is disgusting beyond words. I have seen pics of her on the street looking like she ate the whole block: fat rolls everywhere, nasty double chin, huge cottage cheese ass (yeah, lookin like a pregnant bitch). I am a woman and I think pregnant women should put some clothes on and STFU, no everyone cares about your fucking hemorrhoids.

[ZHAOBLBL]

Two things in this post made me laugh out loud - "What better way to exemplify 'Fabulous at every age' than by putting a 28-year-old on the cover?" (Bazaar) and "Change your look instantly" in the case of Elle. The thing that struck me most was the Photoshopping done on Jessica Simpson - I was like, where the hell are her stretch marks. http://www.high-definition-camcorder-s.com