Glossed Over

Un-Lucky Break for Kim France: She's Out, Holley's In

It was announced this morning that Brandon Holley will replace Kim France as the editor-in-chief at Lucky. France is leaving Conde Nast altogether, according to a press release posted at Business Insider. Holley is currently editor of Yahoo!'s Shine and formerly was the top editor at Jane and ELLEgirl.

Jane's demise was attributed in part to its failure to attract high-end advertisers, a condition aggravated by the magazine's editorial focus on smaller designers and mass-market brands. As much as Lucky has veered toward pricey merchandise in recent years, it's still no Vogue.

Under its new leadership, will Lucky become even more inaccessible in order to meet this challenge? Why is France leaving? And can she take Jean Godfrey-June with her? Hey, internet, we need answers! (In the meantime, speculation is welcome.)

The reality TV reincarnation of Jane Pratt • Former Jane/Sassy demigod Jane Pratt and annoyingly mustachioed stylist Philip Bloch have teamed up for a VH1 reality show that puts “unfashionable women” at the helm of a fashion magazine, Page Six reports today.  The pilot, which has already been shot, is called American Ugly.  (Get it?  It’s America’s Next Top Model meets Ugly Betty! Sigh.)  A show insider says the contestants “are just the saddest bunch.  These people not only needed fashion tips, they needed an entire mental makeover.  Not one could possibly run a magazine.  They were delusional.”  No matter—we’ll watch anyway!

“You look like a Barbie” •  It’s sick, we know, but we woke up thinking about last night’s episode of The Fashionista Diaries. Four issues remain unsolved for us: Are we terrible for cackling in glee each time Stephanie and Brandon told the Jane interns their articles would appear in the September issue? When Rachel and Annemarie visited the crash site, was the slow-mo footage of the eighteen-wheeler supposed to be funny? (Because it was.) Why didn’t we get to see Rachel tutor Andrew on Jane?  And why does Bridget talk like a drunk four-year-old?

Know When to Fold ‘Em: Jane to Close

There’s no official announcement yet, but looks like we’ve seen the last of Jane.  Condé Nast is folding the magazine, which has reportedly struggled at the newsstand and with advertisers in recent months.  Fashion Week Daily says that editor-in-chief Brandon Holley and vice president/publisher Carlos LaMadrid will both leave the company.   

We’re unexpectedly saddened by this news.  We may have mocked Jane relentlessly, but we’ll miss it nonetheless.

For more:

Jane Magazine Folds (Fashion Week Daily)

Rumor: Jane Magazine Folds (Gawker)

Lady Down (Gawker)

Condé  Nast Folds Jane (Radar Online)

Edit: Radar Online has more, including the official press release announcing the closure.  And Mediabistro has a bit more about the affected staffers.

Lowest Common Denominator: Jane, June/July

287: Sum of numbers on the cover, not including page numbers, dates, or dollars (88, Summer ’07, and $100, respectively)

Non-zero: Chance that the blogger who wrote the “something bitchy” about Brandon Holley that she mentions in her “Editor’s Letter” is us.  We’ll never know for sure how many of us are sharing unflattering opinions of her online, will we?  Our story:  We wrote her a non-snarky letter (she did ask, after all) around the time we posted this.  She responded—to her credit, way, way faster than we ever answer email—and asked what it was we didn’t like about the magazine.  We wrote a lengthy, sincere (for us, anyway) response.  She said that Jane was different from other magazines, even if we didn’t think so, and she wished we weren’t so “mean” on this site.  We thanked her for her time.  End overly long personal anecdote.

2: Reader letters castigating Jane for putting Avril Lavigne on the April cover

2: Readers quoted in “Z: The Unstoppable Charm of Zooey Deschanel” suggesting Zooey for the cover

5:  Approximate number of times we hoped to never encounter managing editor Brekke Fletcher and friends in a movie theater while reading page 36.  Seriously, shouting smart-ass comments at the movie screen? 

1:  Absolutely apt quote about the minidress trend, from featured “Dress” stylist Tina Chai: “I like minis, but on some people they can be sort of vulgar—and tragic.”  Yep. 

Mercifully, just 2 we’ve spotted so far: Groaningly awful double entendres. From “The Extras” on page 46: “Nothing says ‘I’m into seamen’ like an anchor charm”; and from “Filthy Never Felt So Good,” page 80: “Scrub one out.”

4: Looks shown in “Don’t Fear…Ruffles,” page 52

4: Looks on that page that made us fear ruffles. It’s like 1987 all over again, only without the shoulder pads and the teased bangs.

Infinity plus:  Amount we dig “Cubicle Refugee.”  How about two pages next time, Jane?  We crave details!

109: Page on which we stopped reading the Zooey Deschanel article lest we overload on sheer preciousness.  The quote that slayed us?  “‘…I’m always looking for school uniforms, trying to squeeze into kids’ clothing,’ she says.  ‘It’s sort of a party trick, the way I can get myself into tiny dresses.’” Oh, fun!  At least we’ll always have Elf.  (As for the rest of the article, here’s what we missed.)

14: Words of the cult article on page 112 we’ve read.  We’re saving the rest of it—along with “It Happened to Me”—for a day when we think our life is rough.  Perspective!

46: Clothing and accessory pieces featured in “Basics, Only Cooler”

9: Number of those items priced under $100

5: L.A.-area women who surf included in “California Girls,” including pro Kassia Meador

1:  Article in another women’s magazine this month featuring Kassia Meador—Allure’s similarly themed “Going Coastal”

A Glossed Over Guide: Becoming a Big-Time Beauty Editor

We never thought being a beauty editor was a particularly simple task—if you know what all those different mascara brushes do, you’re way ahead of us—but after reading Jean Godfrey-June’s completely phoned-in column, “The Beauty Closet,” in the June issue of Lucky, we’ve changed our tune.  In fact, based on this page alone, we’ve discerned there are just four easy steps to becoming a top beauty editor:

1.  Carefully select your featured products.  Think you should patrol out-of-the-way boutiques and track down women brewing body lotion in their kitchens?  Not necessary.  It isn’t even mandatory to seek out new formulations or effective innovations to share with your readers.  In fact, all you need to do is read the press releases from a couple of national chain stores, and maybe stroll through the cosmetics aisle at CVS once in a while.  Following the example set in Jean’s June column, a typical article can contain ringing endorsements of mass-manufactured products from commonplace shops like Bath and Body Works and Crabtree & Evelyn.  And why not throw in a L’oreal lip gloss that can be purchased in pretty much any drugstore in the U.S.?  Done!

2.  Find colorful ways to describe the items. Beauty editors are supposed to be creative, so be bold with your language.  Don’t be afraid to refer to candles with nonsensical descriptions like “stuffy, stodgy chic,” and feel free to use cloying constructions like “uber-British-y.”  Not sure what these phrases actually mean?  Don’t worry!  Your readers won’t know either!

3.  Keep the big picture in mind. Never forget that, as a beauty editor, your job is to sell products that no one really needs. Don’t hesitate to overstate the cultural importance of common items like lip gloss if you think it’ll move a few more units, and be sure to couch even the most pedestrian of beauty aids in convoluted, grandiose language.  Even though no one will truly comprehend your prose, they won’t want to admit it.  For example:

Women no longer powder their noses; cigarettes are out; only lipstick remains, a final holdout of the glamorous secreting away of oneself in full view that was once the epitome of femininity.

No editor will dare to delete sweeping generalizations about the nature of womanhood!

4.  Don’t sweat the small stuff.  For instance, don’t bother figuring out whether a shower foam saves time over a shower gel because it doesn’t require lathering.  No one’s going to test any of your baseless claims anyway because, well, they’re insignificant.  (How much time do you spend working up a lather in the shower?  Mere seconds!  See?)  Likewise, don’t waste a moment pondering if you, as the beauty editor, should even be recommending home accessories like candles, even if your magazine has a home decor section where candles would be much better suited.

With practice and persistence, a beauty editor position is easily attainable.  And if you get discouraged, keep the faith:  these four steps obviously worked for Jean Godfrey-June.

Previously:  A Glossed Over Guide: Parlaying Your Pregnancy Into Press

Jane's "Inspirational" Women Only Inspire Disappointment

Too much Kirsten Dunst is bad for one’s dreams.  We blame the one-two punch of taking in both Spider-Man 3 (thumbs down, by the way) and the May issue of Jane on the same evening.  Combine that with the news that the magazine will soon be the subject of a reality show, and we conjured a rather vivid dream about the Jane TV show last night.  Which would be weird enough, except that in our dream, Brandon Holley was played by Kirsten Dunst.

Despite our subconscious fixation with Kiki, it wasn’t her joint interview with Spider-Man co-star Bryce Dallas Howard—“Even Kirsten & Bryce Have Quarterlife Crises”? Excuse us for not feeling terribly sympathetic— or even the vaguely creepy collage of disembodied breasts on page 125 that stuck with us after a night’s sleep.  Rather, it was “30 Under 30,” which features

Thirty inspirational women.  (Okay, it’s really 31, but that’s not as snappy.)  We didn’t have room for all 57 million.

Aw, shamelessly flattering the readers.  Never a good sign.  (And we’re exempt, anyway—not only are we too old to awe Jane, but Brandon Holley thinks we’re  “mean.”  Sniff.)

Anyway, since our idea of an interesting woman differs so markedly from Jane’s, we wanted to take a closer look at their honorees.  And while there are some truly accomplished women on the list (did you know that someone could be a molecular biologist and a comic book artist at the same time?  What have we been doing with our life?), there are also some typically dubious choices.

For instance:

• Four actresses (Amanda Seyfried, Anna Paquin, Kristen Stewart, and Jessica Rose) and three singer/actresses (Ciara, Hilary Duff, and Lea Michele) make the list.  Hilary Duff, “inspirational”?  Only in that her music inspires us to stab a letter opener into our eardrums, but we’re pretty sure that’s not what they mean.  The piece’s intro cites a sushi chef, a student activist, and a political adviser, yet actress and singer/actress are the only two occupations represented several times over. 

Also, the demographics of the list were interesting:

•  Eight women—about a quarter of the list—live in New York.  Another six live in Los Angeles.

•  The average age of the listees is 20, thanks in part to the two 17-year-olds who made the list: actress Kristen Stewart and “Internet it girl” Cory Kennedy.  (And the fact that Cory Kennedy is deemed “inspirational” is indicative of how credible this list is.  She’s the absolute epitome of being famous for, well, being famous.)

•  Six of the women—three actresses, Ciara, Duff, and Broadway performer Michele—were dressed by the magazine for the shoot.  The others are, presumably, wearing their own clothes.  Nothing’s more inspirational than a woman dressed by a stylist!

We know it’s impossible to craft a list that will please everyone, and that no magazine would put, say, the first African-American polka dance champ (page 106) on its cover.  But Anna Paquin, who comes across as mature and level-headed, could take the cover. 

We’ll give Jane points for trying, but next time around, how about a list comprised entirely of non-famous women?  What about an in-depth exploration of their lives and issues instead of a handful of not-too-enlightening quips?  We’d love to hear the bodybuilder and the ballet dancer’s thoughts on skinny models.  Or why not let the transgender student and the carpentry foreman discuss gender roles? 

Instead, we get Stewart bemoaning how restricted she feels by being 17 (!), Ciara breathlessly awaiting her “prince,” and Duff spouting banalities about being famous allows her to be an inspiration to other women.  Give us a break, okay?  Were these the best quotes their publicists could come up with?  It’s great that Duff is learning to cook, but, somehow, the idea of a wealthy 19-year-old cooking her own dinner doesn’t exactly inspire us to lead a better life.

Lucky: Avril Lavigne's Post-Marriage Personality Makeover

We know Avril Lavigne just released a new album—how else could her appearance on the covers of Jane (April) and Lucky (May) be justified?—but we refuse to take her seriously as a fashion icon when she’s wearing an outfit that Shannen Doherty would have worn on season one of Beverly Hills, 90210.  (Maybe we’re showing our age here, but you know Brenda Walsh would have sported that vest at the Peach Pit along with the requisite paper-bag waist jeans and black fedora.)

In case the outfit isn’t reason enough to generate animosity toward Avril (though we will admit to coveting the star-shaped pendant), there’s the way she claims her marriage has changed her.

In Lucky’s “At the Shoot,” she says:

“I didn’t really care about fashion when I was a teenager, but in the last couple of years—since I got married, I guess—something changed,” says Avril, 22.  “Now I love so many things about it:  like cool heels and bags and all kinds of accessories.”

Then, in “Her Way”:

“I’m in a place in my life where I can try out things that are a bit more feminine, but still maintain some punk attitude.”

A place in her life? Being married, she means.

What a strange phenomenon.  Apparently, being legally wed leads a woman to develop a fascination with clothes and shoes!  Now that she’s got that ring on her finger, there’s no need to maintain her own persona.  Nope, the wedding day was the time to morph into an outmoded prototype of femininity!  Has she also cultivated an interest in cooking, cleaning, and childbirth?  Or is she only interested in exploiting stereotypes that relate to her appearance and therefore might boost her career?

We can’t say for sure, of course.  And as crassly commercial as the “new” Avril may be, her neckties-worn-with-tanks look from a few years back was just as calculated.  But what do we expect?  We can’t exactly hope for authenticity from a  woman who claims to have “punk attitude” while, in the same article, extolling the virtues of diamond jewelry and Armani gowns.

The Week: Vogue Goes Bold, Features Actual Models

• First, a look at next month’s Vogue and W covers.  Shocker!  Those are models, not movie stars, on the cover of Vogue.  Though if there absolutely must be a celeb on the cover, it’s hard to argue with America Ferrera.

• Jane’s newsstand sales may be flagging, but that hasn’t stopped the development of a TV show.

• Ooh, juicy.  Editors from Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan, and Bazaar live it up in New Orleans, while low-level staffers at the magazines have their raises delayed.  We expect this incident to spawn at least one more thinly veiled novel about a magazine assistant.

• Is Good Housekeeping going hip?  As part of a makeover, the magazine hires editors from Jane and Lucky.

• Is Ashlee Simpson the face of June’s Cosmopolitan?  If so, why?

• And Jane Pratt blah blah blah another interview blah blah blah.  Yep, even we’re bored with her by now.

Dear Brandon: A Response to Jane's Editor

Dear Brandon,

Remember your first “Editor’s Letter”?  Remember how instantly enamored we were and how hopeful we were that you could salvage a magazine we once adored for its irreverent point-of-view, just because you wrote a succinct and impersonal message and didn’t act falsely chummy, Jane Pratt-style, and ask us to vote on whether you should get highlights?

Well, things have changed, and it’s not us—it’s you.  Let’s talk about your April message.

Before you get all up in arms about the changes you’re gonna see in this issue, let me first say that it’s all your fault.

Changes?  Based on reader suggestions?  Now you’re just teasing us, Brandon.

If you weren’t so forward, smart and insightful…

Uh oh. Resorting to flattery already?   That doesn’t bode well.

…about telling me what kind of magazine you want to read, I wouldn’t have tweaked a thing.

Well, there’s a tacit admission that she’s out of touch and knows it.  She wouldn’t have made any changes?  If everything at Jane was copacetic, then why was she even hired?  ’Fess up already, Brandon—after all, Jane Pratt barely manages to flip through new issues.

By the way, when you send me an e-mail, it goes straight to my Treo and not to some IT guy.

Which, you know, is the accepted way that email works.  But thanks for clarifying that for us!

So the editors here and I can now say beyond any doubt that you want us to feature fewer Hollywood bimbos…

…which is why Avril Lavigne is on the cover, since she’s a Canadian bimbo and therefore completely different.

You also love book reviews—sorry I cut down on them for a while…

Remember when you said your readers were “smart”?  Do you know a single smart woman who exclusively reads Jane?  Yeah, nor do we.

…and you’ll most likely shoot us if we ever try to give you pandering sex advice or diet info…

But pandering career advice and a pandering ad campaign are absolutely okay!

We’re just trying to get closer to what I think we all want Jane to be: a mirror for a culture of women who are opinionated, funny and smart, and who don’t suffer bullshit.

Okay, she’s right on this one minute detail.  That’s what we want  Jane (and, if we’re truthful, every magazine) to be.  Unfortunately, the reality is nowhere near that goal, as is painfully evident in the very next sentence:

My favorite item this month is the women at a dog park in Silver Lake, L.A.:  We asked them who their dogs would be if they were famous, and their answers were hilarious—we couldn’t have written them better.

Funny, she said she wanted to reflect “opinionated” women, so naturally we thought  Jane would seek out opinions on subjects that, oh, actually matter.  Not that asking women to conflate a dog’s personality with that of a celeb isn’t (sort of, perhaps, maybe if you’re in the right mood) funny. But it’s a terrible trifle to trot out as an example of the “culture of women” the magazine claims to promote.  Apparently modern women are defined not by their own personalities, but by the traits they conjure for their dogs.

As ever, e-mail me…

Check your Treo, Brandon.

Love,

Glossed Over