COMPLETELY RANDOM: Subscriber Abuse

I subscribed to Marie Claire for you, dear reader.  I assumed I'd probably be getting December as my first issue, probably late in the month.  Instead, my first issue was November, arriving in my mailbox over a week into December.  As you can see, it also showed up looking like it had been chewed by weasels.

The back is even worse, and all of the pages in the issue are bent.  I imagine them pulling the rejects from the previous month's issue, the ones that didn't make the quality cut, the ones that perhaps were used to entertain weasels, and shipping those out to their new subscribers.  What a great first impression!  It reminded me of something else - the last time I subscribed to Marie Claire and received a two month old issue that may have been delivered by a pack of wild dogs.  This out of date issue that they'd already printed before I sent in my check counts against my 12 month subscription, so they "save" some money.  So uncool.

I received my December/January copy of Harper's Bazaar the same day, and they helpfully included this letter:

Expiration notice?!?!?  Oh noes, I thought!!!  Except...check out the highlighted area.  My subscription is expiring with the September 2014 issue, which is 9+ months from now.  I'm not supposed to know to read that.  I'm supposed to freak out and renew, and then they'll trick me again in six months with the same threat of expiration and I guess eventually my subscription will outlive me!

DECONSTRUCTING "THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA": Let's Talk Advertisers

Miranda Priestly: No. No, I just- It's just baffling to me. Why is it so impossible to put together a decent run-through? You people have had hours and hours to prepare. It's just so confusing to me. Where are the advertisers?
Jocelyn: We have some pieces from Banana Republic.
Miranda Priestly: We need more, don't we?

Check out this letter from a reader, which Vogue actually printed but of course made no response to.

I figured out years ago that the only extra you get from a September issue is additional ad pages.  Nothing else.  The September issues are so famous (helped along by the Vogue documentary of the same name) that every year you'll see media reports on what each mag's page count is going to be as they compete against each other.  The number of pages on that cover wasn't really trying to tell readers about all the wonderful fashion trends - it was put there to brag.

(If you are curious what it's like to flip through a 902 page magazine, I can tell you they are so unwieldy that I dropped this year's Harpers Bazaar in the tub while trying to read it during a soak.)

One of the big secrets, though, is that fashion magazines are pay-to-play.  Buy some ads, and you'll mysteriously find yourself featured in editorial.  Since the mags tend to show a lot of "aspirational" luxury items, it's easiest to notice the lower-end products placed amongst them in a sort of one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others way.  If you see something from, say, Banana Republic, Lane Bryant, or Revlon displayed next to Prada, Marc Jacobs, and Creme de la Mer, you can flip through the pages and spot the ad that "bought" the coverage.  In the past, I've even seen a couple of beauty products in editorial that faced (printed on the page opposite) the ad for the exact same product.

Once it's pointed out to you, you really can't unsee it.  It doesn't bother me that much for clothes since most of the time I'm just searching for general ideas, but I used to rely on the mags for beauty recommendations and was repeatedly burned.  Now I'll make a note of a new product if it sounds interesting, but I look elsewhere for the "real" reviews.

WANT: Vogue December 2013

I want all of it, every bit, more green!  Vogue featured a lot of green this month, maybe due to the holiday season, and I loved it all.  Mental note:  buy more green, buy ALL THE GREEN.

ETA: It's been noticed that things look a bit blue in the photo above, rather than green.  I promise I'm not crazy - the original is much more greenish.  Sorry for the confusion!

ADD IT UP: Vogue December 2013

Got any kids on your Christmas list?  Why not a $550 stick horse, or perhaps a $1200 sled?  Makes the $65 moccasins and $40 Lego camera feel like a steal!

TRENDY: Vogue December 2013

Fashion-wise, there's been a lot of retreading of the 80's in the past few years, but I feel we're starting to shift to the later 80's/early 90's.  As evidenced here, where the photo looks like a classic Courtney love ensemble.  I've noted previously that everyone's showing stompy boots, and you can see some more on the model and featured below.  Though I doubt the average riot grrl spent $385 on hers. 

GOOD JOB: Vogue December 2013

Such a wonderful photo series of Jessica Chastain emulating famous paintings.  She's so striking with the natural look makeup and her ivory skin, and the dress is perfect.

Here's the photo compared to the original art (along with another side-by-side that was also pretty great).

And finally, here's another shot from the series that was just exquisite.  (Also, did anyone else notice a passing resemblance to Katee Sackhoff here?)

WANT: Vogue December 2013

OMG I NEED THIS CHAMELEON RING!!!  It's a long story, I worked on a chameleon project at work for an extended time, and now have a close bond with the lizard.  Even without this intense chameleon bond, I would think this a spectacular ring.  His tail wraps around your finger to form the ring!  *swoons*

Here's another shot, from the mag's table of contents.

Special bonus:  This spread featured Sansa from "Game of Thrones," looking like she stepped right out of a painting.