Thursday, January 05, 2006

The Difference Between Us and In Touch

In In Touch magazine, there is a segment I like called "is it true," which confirms and dispells celebrity rumors with a yes "check" or a no "x." I also like the body section, which references celebrity bodies (often female ones, like mine).
Compared to
In Touch, Us Weekly is like a George Eliot novel. It's a lot closer to People, bucks-wise, but with fewer human-interest stories. Us is particularly good about comparing and contrasting two people who wear the same dress, and coming up with the one who looked better in it or, as it is often the case, had better accessories.
In Touch
is cheaper, more exploitative and ironic, while Us takes itself more seriously and has more money.
I know why people like me read these magazines: Because rotting one's brain involves a lot of work and a lot of varying outlets.

Some people who do not read these magazines weekly, as I do, read them occasionally, like when they are getting their nails done. I realize that while one is getting one's nails done, one will do anything to escape the awkwardness of sitting across from some stranger who may or may not speak English, who is digging in and filing away at one's nails, breathing on one. Or the manicurist is wearing a mask to avoid the breathing situation, which makes it equally discomforting for one.
This is why I read these magazines on the subway or at home, so I can appreciate them somewhat privately and actually hold them in my grubby hands.

It also means I have to purchase them. O forgive me blank-faced lords of the Abyss!

No comments: