In a first, I DON’T prefer the subscriber’s cover. But let’s start with the newsstand:
I briefly though this was a romper, but after talking to Heather and looking closely, it is a very short dress with a kind of misleading hem. Which makes me feel so much better; if that were a romper, I’d go ballistic, but as a dress, it’s acceptably sparkly fun (although SHE looks like much less sparkly fun than I’d like, perhaps because her body looks proportioned in a somewhat unnatural way). Elle is smarter than running two Granny Panty Covers in a row. In fact, I think Elle is REALLY smart — it, and InStyle, are the only Glossy Magazines to which I still subscribe, and as I’ve said here before, I sometimes feel like Elle is one of the few “women’s magazines” on the market today that doesn’t fear having a page that’s just words. Like, words you’re supposed to read — not, like, listicals or WORDS. (Although I obviously need to take a closer look at Cosmo under the eyeballs of Joanna Coles, because we all know she’s a snarky smarty, and who doesn’t love that?) I always look forward to reading it when it arrives in my mailbox. Even when I have a negative reaction to the subscribers cover, as I fear I did this month:
ARGH. From the waist up, I actually love it — the beanie, the sort of Cool French Girl Hair, the top of the dress. It works for me, especially in that setting. And I love that the subscriber covers are always so much more interesting than Celebrity + White Background (which I’m sure they use because it sells on a newsstand). But this dress, as I believe we’ve made clear on multiple occasions, makes me want to set my face on fire. RIGHT ON FIRE. I’m sorry, Elle. I still want to read how to get perfect hair. I still love your insides. That’s what counts, right? RIGHT??
What do you guys think?