Glossed Over

The Fifth Annual September Vogue Liveblog

Good morning! Welcome to the fifth annual liveblog of the September issue of Vogue. Five years! 

The rules: I have not opened this issue, nor have I read any blog posts/articles/embittered rants about its content. I will, however, admit to watching Racked try to smash snack foods with this sucker. It's heavy! The liveblog goes in chronological order; refresh the page to see the latest updates.

Oh, and one more thing. As I mentioned in the video, I will be tweeting during the day using the hashtag #vogueliveblog, and I would love for you to use that hashtag too! As a small token of my gratitude for all of you out there reading along with me, I'll be giving The September Issue on DVD to three randomly selected people who tweet a link to this site and the hashtag between 10 a.m. today and 5 p.m. Eastern on Friday. (This is not a sponsored giveaway, just me spending my own money to send three lucky people a movie. US and Canada only, sorry.) Remember, your tweet must include both a link--you can use http://bit.ly/vogueliveblog11--and the hashtag #vogueliveblog to be eligible to win.  [Contest now closed, winners declared.] Thanks for being here!

Now let's get going.

Vogue Liveblog: Wednesday, August 24

Wikipedia says I do this every year, so it must be true! Glossed Over’s fifth annual Vogue liveblog will take place Wednesday, August 24, at 10 a.m. Eastern. Here’s how it went in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Vogue Liveblog 2010: The One with Halle Berry on the Cover

The other day someone asked me why I still do the liveblog. After all, I've done it three years in a row. Isn't it time to move on? To which I say: Definitely not! I've been so focused on my day job lately that I'm barely finding time to read anything. (Alas, snarking on fashion magazines does not pay the rent, though I'm willing to entertain offers.) If not for this liveblog, I might never read September Vogue. That page count is intimidating!

As always, the rules: I have not opened this issue of Vogue. I have not read what any other writers thought about this issue. I'll be looking at everything except the cover for the first time. The liveblog happens in real time, so just hit refresh on this post to see the latest entries. And I'll be posting periodic updates on Twitter and Facebook throughout the day, too.

Here we go!

Vogue Takes Its Turn in the Lara Stone Sideshow

I haven’t read an issue of Vogue in three months, but good news for me: nothing’s changed! In her January “Letter from the Editor,” Anna Wintour demonstrates the magazine’s remarkably persistent distance from the real world.

[French fashion designer Sophie Theallet] is a very rare creature in fashion these days. As [Lanvin designer Alber] Elbaz told the crowd, it is too often the case these days that people elect to work in style industries in pursuit of fame, not skills. “Why does every girl over five feet tall and age thirteen want to be a model?” he asked. “Why don’t they ever want to be a seamstress?”

Yeah! Why be the beautiful woman who wears the clothes when you could be the poorly paid one who makes them?

Never a magazine to back down from a completely indefensible viewpoint, the issue also includes an article detailing the struggles of size-four model Lara Stone. Which is great, you know, because Vogue clearly offers an unbiased perspective on the fashion industry’s obsession with preternatural thinness. (Sigh.)

From “Hello, Gorgeous”:

It’s hard to say which came first—the superskinny model or the size 0 sample. Either way, the trend has been tough on both the models, who find it nearly impossible to maintain that body type past the age of seventeen, and the magazines that want to show clothes on models who aren’t painfully thin.

Vogue not being one of those magazines, obviously.

Designers who use the superskinny girls defend the trend, saying clothes hang better on a coat hanger. But the opposite is also true—some clothes look better on bodies with “boobs,” which is why Stone’s career has flourished.

What a charming pair of sentences! Slender women's bodies are compared to coat hangers, the fashion industry's ideal woman is actually an inanimate object, and we learn clothes aren't designed for humans. Oh, and for those who don't happen to resemble a hanger, guess what! One model who is still way thinner than most of us is enough to represent us! Who says the fashion industry doesn't love women?

Stone doesn’t blame fashion for her problems. “I like my job,” she says… She doesn’t even blame the designers—“That is their aesthetic. It’s not for me to say whether it’s right or wrong.”

Well, I’ll say it. It is wrong to call a woman fat because she doesn’t resemble a wire hanger. Also wrong? Not blaming designers. Canonizing a coat hanger as the ideal female form isn't the worst thing they could do, but it's probably illegal to make clothes out of asbestos.

By the way, those difficulties writer Rebecca Johnson refers to? They include a recent stint in rehab for alcohol abuse—a habit that began when Stone tried drinking to lose weight. In a sentence so callous that I can't quite believe it's in print, Johnson says this:

Her problems—if you can even call them that—recall the poet Rilke's definition of fame as the collection of misunderstandings that gather around a person.

Got that? Stone's drinking was reminiscent of Rilke, and not, say, indicative of a destructive atmosphere in the fashion world.

“People still tell me I’m fat, but when I look in the mirror, that’s not what I see.”

Maybe Wintour and Elbaz are on to something: why would a woman aspire to be a model when this is how models are treated?

Stone’s recent surge in prominence may well lead to a positive shift in attitudes—but until then, it’s disheartening to see her continually treated like a size-four sideshow.  Her shape makes her an anomaly in the fashion world, but by focusing on her "fat" size-four body, magazines seem to overlook that she's an anomaly in the real world, too.

Related: What W Really Thinks About Women's Bodies

Vogue Liveblog 2009: The Real September Issue

The cover of this year's edition says it's "the REAL September issue," as opposed to The September Issue. It's a differentiation that doesn't make much sense for most of us, since the movie's only opened in one city. But it just wouldn't be Vogue if it were accessible to everyone!

Before I begin the liveblog, the rules: I have not read any part of this issue—in fact, I haven't even opened it. I have not read any commentary from other blogs about this issue. All I've seen are the front and back covers.  And I'll be blogging in real time—just refresh this post to see the latest.

On with the magazine!

The Vogue Liveblog is Wednesday, Sept. 2

How much Vogue can a human being handle in one sitting? For the third consecutive year, I’m putting myself to the test to find out! The experiment begins at 10:00 a.m. Pacific. Need background on this? Here are the results from 2007 and last year.

Announcing the 2009 September Vogue Liveblog

Vogue, we meet again! Starting at 10:00 a.m. Pacific on Wednesday, Sept. 2, I’ll undertake my third annual liveblog of the September issue of Vogue—reading it all in one sitting and blogging as I go.

Will André Leon Talley imply that he’s a close friend of at least one A-list star? Will Plum Sykes write 47 pages about something totally inconsequential? Will this issue contain a minimum of six hilariously off-base references to the recession? Yes! Will I lose my mind reading all this dreck in one sitting? Almost certainly!

So please join me next week for six hours (or more!) of the biggest fashion magazine of the year. Check out how I did in 2007 and last year—and until next week, no spoilers, please. Unless you want to tell me all about the photos of Hugh Jackman, in which case, you have my full attention.

Yes, There Will Be a Vogue Liveblog

Once again, I’m going to be a fashion victim. I’ll be blogging live as I make my way through the September issue of Vogue in one sitting. This year’s edition features Charlize Theron and has 36 percent fewer ad pages than last year. Thanks, rotten economy! You’ve made my liveblog a little easier!

Watch this space for details about the date and time. Until then, check out how it went in 2007 and 2008.

Take the Vogue Challenge: Could You Live on $92,000 a Year?

If you’re anything like me, you’ve wondered this as you flip through magazines and encounter the $500 “investment” pants and the $175 “bargain” belt: Who is buying this stuff, and why don’t I do what they do for a living?

The May issue of Vogue sheds some light on the matter, introducing us Target-shopping types to the suffering that occurs when women who've invested in trousers lose their source of income. In “On the Market,” fashion writer Lynn Yaeger details her financial troubles after being laid off from job at the Village Voice—“troubles,” of course, being a relative term. See, after numerous calculations, Yaeger decides that she requires a minimum of $92,000 a year to maintain her rent, utilities, and Wolford hosiery collection.

Okay, Yaeger has a mortgage in New York City, which could easily run several thousand dollars a month, but excuse me if I can’t quite empathize with someone for whom that kind of cash is a bare minimum. Vogue certainly knows its audience: Why bother with the stories of families struggling to eat when you can reveal how the upper crust might have to cut back on the Bergdorf's shopping benders? The essay includes so little focus on expenses like housing and insurance and so much attention to items sold at Henri Bendel that only two conclusions can be gleaned: The Village Voice must have paid Yaeger in wheelbarrows full of cash, and maybe Comme des Garcons skirts really are essentials.

So, could you scrape by on 92K? I’ve devised this quiz to help you decide.

1. If dozens of employees at your company were being let go in the weeks before your layoff, what would you be likely to purchase?

A. Nothing unnecessary. I’m saving!

B. “A Victorian diamond-and-sapphire snake ring…just because I liked it, just because I wanted it.”

2. Oh no! The axe fell. Now that you’re unemployed, you need some quick cash. Check your closet—are there any garments with tags still attached that you can return?

A. Yeah, but...is it worth braving the crowds at H&M for a refund on a $24.90 cotton skirt?

B. “Back went the Lanvin bag…the tulle Comme des Garcons skirt that looked like a benign black mushroom cloud, recently acquired at Saks, had already been worn once, so that was a reluctant keeper.”

3. The biggest obstacle to getting by on just savings, severance, and unemployment benefits is:

A. Giving up Starbucks and lunches out

B. “I am the consummate compulsive shopper.”

4. You schedule a consultation with a financial planner. After considering your fixed expenses, the planner gives you a daily pocket-cash allowance of:

A. Enough to buy dinner off the Taco Bell value menu

B. $50

5. On this strict budget, the item you’re most concerned about purchasing is:

A. Health insurance

B. Rene Furterer Okara shampoo, T. LeClerc face powder, Wolford tights, and tickets to South Pacific on Broadway

6. You decide to freelance to supplement your income, but you need a printer/copier. You find one for $99. That sum is:

A. A lot of money now that you’re out of work, but a worthwhile investment

B. “Far less than the cheapest Marc Jacobs T-shirt” (And anyway, you simply require it: “The prospect of having to wait in line with other unemployed people at the local copy shop…had filled me with horror.”)

7. After a few months of unemployment, your perspective on money changes. You realize this when:

A. You discover in the worst possible way that the least expensive bath tissue really isn’t the same as the national brand.

B. You meet with a friend and “neither of us could believe that only a few months ago we thought $900 was a typical price for a sweater.”

8. Good news! You’ve landed some freelance work. You treat yourself to:

A. Name-brand toothpaste and a pedicure at the neighborhood salon (skip the callus removal treatment!)

B. “I found myself looking at the Web site of…the dealer who sold me the snake ring, and gazing weakly at it. I was terrified that one day the ring would be marked SOLD and slip out of my life forever.”

9. Even though you’re now financially stable, you’ve had to work out a payment plan with:

A. Your student loan financier and the electric company

B. Your antique jewelry dealer

10. Now that you’re back on your feet, you decide it’s time to plan for the future. You:

A. Open a high-yield savings account and max out your retirement contributions

B. Admire your jewelry! “And if I’m wrong, well, a diamond-and-sapphire cobra will always be worth something—which is more than you can say for a 401(k).”

If you’ve chosen mostly Bs, then you’ve opted to invest mostly in your appearance. And isn’t that what matters? You’re wearing an antique ring shaped like a cobra! (As for the actual Yaeger, talk about cognitive dissonance. How can she write both this Vogue essay and an article noting that $49.90 dresses are “not the cheapest things in the world”? Different readership, I guess.)

If you’ve selected mostly As, you’ve chosen money in the bank over money on your back. Priorities, people! Invest in yourself! Does solvency really feel better than the flawless fit of designer pants? It’s a choice every woman has to make, but I think we all know where Vogue stands on the matter.

Vogue's Power Issue Is Less Than Empowering

I have a terrible cold, and it won't go away. Still, there's an upside to being home sick: plenty of time to read magazines! If there’s one person who can shake me from my Nyquil-induced stupor, it’s Anna Wintour. In an attempt to distract myself from the vanishing likelihood of breathing through my nose before Labor Day, I decided to flip through the March issue of Vogue.

Wintour’s monthly “Letter from the Editor” is, predictably, the usual attempt to make the magazine seem relevant by employing the most tenuous of connections to link fashion to a prodigious list of the planet’s ills. For instance: did you know that refraining from buying clothes is indefensible? Your inability to afford designer clothing is why people are losing their jobs! I'm not making this up.

Then, explaining that this is the “Power Issue,” Wintour runs through the list of women who receive considerable space in its pages: Michelle Obama. Carla Bruni Sarkozy. Queen Rania of Jordan. Melinda Gates.

And, not mentioned by Wintour, but appearing in a lengthy profile shortly after her letter, Silda Wall Spitzer.

Notice anything about that list of women? They’re all primarily known for—and because of—the men they married.

In no way do I mean to downplay or diminish the individual accomplishments of these women, all of whom are intelligent and successful in their own right. And I’m not suggesting that there be never be any mention of profile subjects’ personal lives. After all, if that were the case, how would Vogue manage its annual Jennifer Aniston sobfest?

I am suggesting that they include more women whose notability is their own. (To be fair, this issue also contains an article about Twilight author Stephenie Meyer—significantly shorter than the other profiles—and the usual smattering of celebrities and fashion-world types.) When the majority of ink in the "Power Issue" is devoted to women whose renown and influence streams heavily from their spouses, Vogue is either making a cynical observation about the state of women today or telling us that a woman's greatest accomplishment is landing a successful husband.

Not that I expect Vogue to become a serious source of inspiration. But it could be worse—this issue also contains hundreds of words about the apparently transformative powers of Plum Sykes' haircut. I'll take a story about a famous wife over the tale of a woman whose life revolves around her own appearance any day.