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?
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…
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.