Another Awesome Cover Courtesy of Russian Vogue

No wonder Russian Vogue has a circulation of 3 million. If you're at all familiar with the Russian culture, you know that they're suckers for luxury: diamonds, fur, exotic cars and exotic women. So this cover appeals to their luxurious tastes, but on its own it is a cover that dreams are made of. The gorgeous juxtaposition of the snow white fur with Naomi's creamy dark complexion is just pure genius. It's stunning and inspiring and makes you want to embrace the good life. For a second, you imagine yourself on the slopes at St. Moritz sipping hot cocoa infused with Bailey's Irish Cream and toasting your toes by the warm hearth. If only American Vogue's covers could inspire such fantasies even just for a moment.

THIS is what I'm talking about: Russian Vogue Brings It!

Victoria Beckham graces the cover of the February issue of Russian Vogue, and to quote Tyra Banks, "Girl looks fierce!" I actually hate using that word, but in this case, it totally fits. The cover is sexy, powerful, mysterious and dramatic. I love the red nails, the eyes so covered by the hat's shadow that you can barely see them. It's the kind of cover that really draws you in and you find yourself weirdly mesmerized for some reason.

Obviously, there's no way a Russian-themed cover that evokes communism would go well with Middle America so naturally La Wintour would never be OK with this. But I'm not asking her to regurgitate other awesome covers; I'm asking her to make her own awesome covers!!! I want American Vogue to produce covers that are mesmerizing, captivating, provocative but not overtly sexual, and timeless. There's so much excitement and energy in this country right now and it's a shame that Vogue can't reflect these sentiments in their pages. For a magazine that is often called the fashion bible, there's just nothing remotely holy or biblical about it anymore.

The Twisted Logic Behind Vogue's Covers: America Ferrera, bad; Blake Lively, good

So, La Wintour's decision to put Gossip Girl and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants star Blake Lively on the February cover of Vogue was met with a lot of criticism. Partly, because much of the public didn't think the blonde starlet deserved such a prestigious cover, which is usually reserved for A-listers and the occasional socialite (remember Melania Knauss before she became Mrs. Trump?). Vogue defended their decision by stating (and I'm paraphrasing) that Ms. Lively was on a popular TV show famous for its fashion. Now, I love Blake and the show so I didn't really think much of this whole brouhaha over the cover choice. But then I got to thinking: Hey, how come other super-popular TV stars haven't been honored with a Vogue cover? Namely, America Ferrera.

Coincidentally, America and Blake have very similar pedigrees. Both were in The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, both star in popular TV shows (in America's case, it's Ugly Betty, a tongue-in-cheek look at the craziness that is the fashion world), and both are super gorgeous, young and famous. It should also be mentioned that Gossip Girl averages about 2.5 - 3 million viewers a week, whereas Ugly Betty averages between 8 and 11 million. In case you're wondering what this means, it means more people watch Ugly Betty and ergo, it's the more popular show.

So, why on God's green earth did La Wintour choose to put Blake on the cover and not America? Hmmm, could it be that it's because America is......gasp! Latina? While, Blake is as white and all-American as apple pie. I don't know, but it was a thought that crossed my mind ;)

Screw you, Plum Sykes

Ah, Plum, the little protege that could. This 30-something Vogue contributor hails from Britain and has been under La Wintour's wing for over a decade. In addition to writing some of the most mindless articles this side of the Atlantic, Plummy has also penned two literary masterpieces, Bergdorf Blondes and The Debutante Divorcee. Both riveting works about the trials and tribulations of New York socialites. That Pulitzer's within reach, Plum-Plum, I promise.

One of Plum's saddest contributions to society was an article written a few years ago wherein she lamented the fact that the buttons on her thousand dollar coats kept falling off and her stallworth efforts to deal with this tragedy. SHE WROTE TWO PAGES ON IT!!! Yes, I read it all. Yes, I'm pathetic. I'd love to present you with the article, but I hope I had the good sense to recycle that issue. God knows the article wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

This month, Plum regales us with her country wardrobe (page 110) - you know, those special outfits we all set aside for our vacations hunting in the country...oh, I'm sorry, you don't spend one weekend a year "shooting and entertaining" in your country estate? Yeah, me neither. But I imagine it must be a dreadfully difficult task to find the perfect country wardrobe in which to shoot innocent animals. By the way, "the dress code is nonnegotiable: tweeds for day and grand dress for dinner." I really hope Plum found what she was looking for. I'd hate to learn that she wasn't properly dressed for the occasion.

Honestly, how many trees have to die before Plum can produce a decent article?

Stop Insulting Me, Vogue

In my latest issue of Vogue (which I subscribe to so I don't understand why they're sending me these subscription slips, but whatever), the soulless hags over at Conde Nast(y) are attempting to bribe me with the fugliest purse I've ever seen. They've dubbed it the "exclusive Vogue Bag" - ooh, sounds fancy! I'm sorry, but am I to believe that Anna Wintour would be caught dead holding this "exclusive" Vogue bag? I've never been so insulted in all my life. This is worse than the shit Lucky tries to bribe me with. It's not even Kate Spade! This shit wouldn't sell for more than $5 on Canal Street!

But what really gets me is the 49% off the cover price line...I mean, why not 50%? For shame, Vogue, for shame!

Why Vogue Sucks, Part I: The Covers

Vogue covers have been sucking for quite some time now, and everyone seems to know this but the people actually at Vogue.

Case in point: "OK, I'm getting bored with Vogue's covers. Time to bring back the cavalry: Linda Evangelista!" S.A. Lucas-Townsend, Roseville, CA. "Can you please go back to using professional models on your covers?" Jill Burgess-Grider, Brooklyn, NY.

When your readers are complaining about the covers (and begging and pleading for something new) in every issue, and you're actually PRINTING these complaints, maybe it's time for a change. I don't know, I'm just saying. I mean, I'm not a publisher or anything, but it seems like maybe, just maaaaaybe, you'd wanna give your magazine a makeover.

Things that suck about the covers:

1. Overrated white movie stars
2. Arms akimbo or three-quarter profile pose
3. Airbrushed to another dimension
4. Dress by Prada, Chanel or Marc Jacobs, again (hey, it's in the contract)

Which brings us to the February issue featuring the lovely Blake Lively. (I'm skipping January where Vogue somehow managed to make Anne Hathaway look like a vampire cause I can't bear to look at it anymore. Also, my grandpa ripped off the cover to pick some trash up off the floor, but that's a whole other story). OK, so what's wrong with this picture? At first glance, nothing. It's a great photo. She looks gorge, pretty dress, sunshine-y background, la di da. But in the immortal words of Chandler Bing, could this cover BE any more generic? There's no excitement, no emotion. There's no oomph. It's blah to the nth degree. It's just so sad, like a wilting flower that no one can be bothered to water anymore. *Sigh*

*blurry photos courtesy of my iPhone