Slate's Bizbox
culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

Lucky's Charms

Judith Shulevitz
Posted Monday, May 22, 2000, at 5:47 PM ET
Magazine cover

If you've ever doubted that journalistic hand-wringing over popular culture should be banned, consider New York Times media reporter Alex Kuczynski's snarky May 8 preview of Lucky. That's the new women's magazine about shopping that looks like a catalog of fetish objects (which is pretty much what it is). Kuczynski's coverage of the magazine business has never before been characterized by feminist sentiment or concerns about consumerism, so she must have had a conversion experience when she read the publication: "Have we sunk to a level of consumer obsession so craven and silly that women are expected to be fascinated by a centerfold featuring cosmetic sponges, faux alpaca powder puffs, and makeup wedges?" she demands to know. But now that Lucky is on newsstands, you can see for yourself how thoroughly Kuczynski misses the point. The magazine has none of the pretensions to seriousness affected by Vogue, Elle, and Harper's Bazaar, the results of which always make the phrase "women's journalism" sound like an oxymoron. Lucky eschews the earnest articles advancing pop-feminist causes that are usually no more than an excuse to profile attractive, well-dressed women. Lucky does not feel the need to tout the photogenic young author of the moment as evidence of its cultural heft. Lucky understands that what the fashion-magazine reader wants is pictures of stuff and nothing but stuff, along with prices, phone numbers, and Web sites--news a girl can use when in dire need of, say, that new green python-print Henri Bendel bag for $339. (Full disclosure: Culturebox is friendly with Lucky's editor, Kim France, and has even solicited fashion tips from her. Some might say that gives her unique insight into Lucky's charms, though I suppose that judgment would depend on how successful you thought France's advice has been.)

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Judith Shulevitz is a former culture editor of Slate. She is writing a book about the Sabbath.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Response from The Fray:


I often kick myself for having missed the first 18 months of Allure magazine's existence, because stumbling upon it clarified all of my conflicted feelings about women's magazines--at last, I could soak up an endless glut of information about lipsticks, moisturizers, you-name-it, without feeling like I was personally endorsing Anna Wintour's continued tedious reign over Vogue, or the demise of Sassy or the glorious late 1990-mid 1991 Mademoiselle. Here was a magazine that focused with demented intensity on the very superficial topics of which you could only get glimpses from Glamour, Bazaar, et al.

And now there's Lucky. With the possible exception of the much-more-expensive Wallpaper, I honestly cannot imagine a more purely adulatory magazine. There's no self-help. There's no art features. There's no 10 ways to do anything--anything at all--better than you did before. There's only stuff. Heaven! Of course, it will only last as long as the economic boom--and maybe not even that long if, as my taste in Sassy and a short-lived Mademoiselle editorial roster suggest, I am not only not an arbiter of public tastes, but a sign that my readership is a jinx on any publication.

--Katewrath

(To reply, click here.)

(5/23

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Imagine if...
Hiatt | What if McCain had waged his campaign based on respect?
Editorial: Meddlesome PalinKing: The Danger of Palin Power