success of his ilk and essence obviously conveying that classic, Manhattan air, and I find myself wondering if this is the dignitary signing off on all the pages of ad space.

Or maybe it is he, decreeing from on high the amount of ads the reader must endure just to grace a look at the wonder that is...

the 'Vanity Fair.'

No... it is not about 'you' presenting 'us' 'your' money. It is about 'you' wanting to be closer... to Prestige.

It looks as if his leg is kicked up on his desk... but it’s just shadowing. I'm glad. He's too classy for antics. This is [legitimate] business after all. Though his crossed leg leads me to think he is still subconsciously thumbing his nose at me in this specific endeavor. Rightfully so, my task, as righteous as it may be to my subjective mind, is an endeavor of futility; Borne and selectively bred to produce cheap, seedless fruit that doesn't ripen.

Oh, this well dressed scamp is too much. And his name is so cool.

Of course he is the editor.
He is... 'the Quintessence.' (Whispered)

You know he doesn't whiff the 'New Eau Lumière' By Dior sampler. It's delivered to him by the barrel full and he turns it a way with a flick of his wrist. He'll get it from the necks and veils of the bodacious that

swarm and crowd him in his daily struggle to the complimentary town car; the building unfortunately lacking a subbasement garage.

I suddenly find myself wondering how many people this man has fired because they don't tow the ad revenue line. Obviously, magazines don't run themselves on subscriptions or newsstand sales alone, or do they? Regardless, the ad hurricane seems abhorrent to me. But maybe it isn't him responsible for the storm at all. Maybe he's the one advocating 'for' the magazine against those that decree there must be more ads.

Is it possible an editor... just edits?


Regardless these questions, I don't care to read his letter, even on the off chance he happens to address them.

So, objective right?

Well, that is not my aim on this go around.
I'm on a mission of higher importance. Drawing the statistical [caricature] of the high culture American magazine.

Vanity Fair is known as that, right?

…I read his letter.

I suppose it’s ironic the issue is geared toward sisters and it's my sister's magazine. Geez, he seems endearing and humble enough. But of course he does.

He's… the Quintessence.
It’s really too bad it has to be this page trying

to make up for all that has come before it. How many people do like me and breeze right past it to get to the main articles, their senses already dulled but still having to endure a full frontal assault by pleasantly tinged Dior commercialism before they get there?

Finally moving on... to the turn of the facing ad page, I'm presented with the next page I'll deem legit content, the Letters to the editor page (Albeit, a large font, paragraph long lead and large picture take up almost half the page and doesn't leave much room for the introduction to or the letters themselves, reserving about a two-three minute read worth of material on the page's remaining space.) I really want to call it questionable content for such a lack of it but those aren't the parameters I'm trying to determine I keep telling myself.

Turn past the facing ad page and page 54 presents us with the second 'Letters' page. There aren't any from prisoners, but there is much more content to be sure, but content from those working at Vanity Fair? It's like- Let's let the public write for us for free. Right? Granted its only really about a page and a half, and I'm sure Vanity Fair is far from the first published work to make use of the practice, but at this point it’s beyond questionable in my mind what they even employ writers for beside making sponsor lists. Their editor and readers are the only ones doing any

Mylan brand 'Sumatriptan' (50 mg)
Sony brand 'DR-EX12IP' In-Ear stereo headphones w/ mic & remote
Google Mail
Google Chrome
Umbro brand sport shorts (Grey)
Hanes brand undershirts (White T)
MeUndies brand undertrunks (Orange) 

of it thus far. So, Legit tally for content for their benefit...

Ad page turn, and we start into the content... Finally! But... It’s large pictures that take up most of the page, spreading what I would deem a condensed article out into three columns. Add in a facing ad page and you have pages 56-67. 68, content to be sure, but it's a pie graph with figures and two paragraphs of explanation about the apocalypse subject and how to understand the graph. Seems like something that should be found in the likes of Outdoor Magazine. So, it's a page of legit content for the tally, but still questionable in my judgmental mind for a professional magazine with what I imagine are writers, cause all I see is a really large photo, large headline and maybe one hundred - 150 words in the article. Add the graph and it's 'comedy'... At least it differs from the rest of the magazine, I suppose.

Moving on, there's an ad page and then a page that looks like content, but under closer examination... actually, is an ad placed by Vanity Fair in their own magazine. They seem to be selling prints from their archive. How do I tally this? It is an ad. But it's theirs. Anyway, I mark it for their benefit as content, but it's definitely questionable. Next page is a giant illustration and headline. I tallied it as content, but Christ…

Moving on...

Content, ad, content reviewing- well it looks like content reviewing books. But under scrutiny it looks more like a veiled ad- for all intents and purposes it could honestly be an article, but No, I’m marking it ad. I don't even care if they hired photographers, bought these books and had someone actually read them. They don't even review the books outside a couple positive listed like- 'words.' it's a total Ad... Or more likely the magazine got paid by [official ]literary lobbyists to show a picture of the book hedging bets to sell it.

Marked as ad. Turn the facing ad page,

A page with a picture of laid out seasonal make up and its prices appears before me. It's another magazine ad for 20 different products veiled to look like content, just like the previous page made to look like it was an article about books. God. Questionable content tally.

Here’s an ad, and now a giant picture and paragraph. I don't want to write a content tally, but I will... Facing Ad page and now 15 pictures from Brian Grazers marr- wedding to go with the previous full page picture of him and that paragraph I thought was questionable for its sparsity. I tally it as content.

Facing ad page. And then pages 84- 88 follow a legit lazy content, ad pattern. Then I come to

a 'Promotion page' where an ad would be, but it's basically an ad to get you to go to a Vanity Fair discussion board... I put it down as Questionable content; I don't even want to think about adding another category to quantify its existence. Turn the page… and now I basically have to do just that because facing the page of sparse content is a page of three of those tear out, mail-in cards to renew your subscription. I don't want to count it as a page, but it's obviously glued into the binding; regardless the fact the paper itself is even different. Also, if I were to properly remove the cards along their perforations, there'd still be a strip of the paper about a 5th the size of the page wide with Jessica Chastain on it remaining... Hence it’s a legit page meriting- a legit tally, just not one for content. Looks like I counted it as questionable content [though]. I'm starting I question the validity of my own judgment. Must be another Benefit tally for not being an Ad proper.

Content, ad, content, ad. Now it's two full page pictures of famous sisters to introduce their next exposé; or whatever it might be called. Content, certainly, but wow, it's sparse. It goes on like this in one form or fashion from 96-113. No ads. Can you believe it? I can't. Then its four pages of Jim Gaffigan in a van, and two

Adidas brand Kansas Jayhawks Basketball jumper
(Blue & Red heather)
Costco brand Chicken Alfredo
Schwann’s brand green beans
Stanley brand Mini Spotlight
Pfaltzgraff brand plates & silverware

more of a different car (No Gaffigan). From there on out, page 120-166; the last 'page' in the magazine (before the back cover, which has an ad on both sides), there are no ads. I'm finally done with this little experiment/venture.

Final tally: 96 pages of content, out of 166 Vanity Fair numbered pages, plus the covers and their respective ads, 18 of those content pages which I listed as questionable.

And all told, amidst those pages, 70 official ads by my count.
You take away those questionable content pages alone; the ones I counted anyway, and I didn't tally enough of them questionable by my standards, and half the magazine is advertisements.

Final thoughts:
None of what I accounted for... ‘accounts’ for the sheer amount of full page pictures; a majority of which, if there was text at all included, was the most concise of information. Not only do I feel like this magazine was cheating the writers of a subject to write about, but they were also cheating a majority of the actual subjects they were publishing. Oh yeah, and the purchasing audience. But that's their fault for thumbing through the damn thing and not somehow seeing that.

By and large the magazine is pictures and ads

as page filler with captions. The funny thing is this isn't a photography magazine and People Magazine does more with their captions. I do more with my captions to these letters.

But to their credit, I think it'd be largely fair to say, maybe 20-35 pages of the magazine were legitimate content oriented text. Like- what one might call- Oh, I don't know, an 'Article.' Oddly, two thirds to half of that text was only in the last quarter of the magazine for whatever reason.

Well, there you have it... The official, current Vanity Fair experience.
I hope it was thorough enough for you. ('Thoreau,' ‘thorough’ if'n you like things like 'Chopin' 'Wood' and living out in nature by ‘Youssef.’)

I would have included the Dior sampler to try and compete with Chester and his...

pachouli/sandalwood glue or whatever... But I pretty much smelled it all up. I also wouldn't want to distract you from all the legit content I provided.

As a parting gift let me potentially blow your mind: Ready?

Tyrannosaurus Rex (Tyrant Lizard in greek) actually had feathers.
Boom.
How's that mind?
Blown?
I thought so.

[Printed out digital represtenaton of and artitst's represetiation of a T Rex with feathers]

Yeah that's right. That's actually T Rex.
With feathers.
It's real. (Even though it's actually a 

computer generated image.) So when I write 'it's real,' I mean Tyrannosaurus really had feathers. But it can also mean even though the image I provided is only a printed out representation of a computer generated representation of an undeclared artist's representation of Tyrannosaurus with feathers... It's not really 'a' Tyrannosaurus with feathers, even though I wrote 'It's real' about Tyrannosaurus with feathers being real.

That doesn't mean the original, undeclared artist's rendition 'isn't' just as real or even that the computerized representation of that artist's rendition isn't just as real also, or even [the] printerized (sic) version I'm responsible for isn't also real, you know?
All of those things are still things... they exist, they're real.

That's philosophy!

Wouldn't it be funny to go back in time and find out Feathery Rex's primary diet was like... Tyrannus-Celery sticks? Rex's teeth becoming so large through evolution not for eating and tearing away at meat as once previously thought, but so fewer celery sticks would get caught between them and more would make it into its stomach.

That's retrospective postulation  Paleontology!

(Though some might argue 'Retrospective 'speculative' Paleontology,' might be more aptly utilized a term.)

But they would be speculating on their own part because they are neglecting to notice there is a 'basis' on my reasoning for the evolutionary trait of bigger teeth, which makes it a postulation, not a speculation...

Silly gooses.
It’s not as if I'm just... throwing out some asinine idea like T Rex ate tyrant celery sticks because it like... crossed my mind... in the moment and what not.
Who does that?!
Had T Rex's teeth been closer together he most certainly could have gotten more celery stick fibers stuck between them.
That's just... a fact!
And where would Feathery Rex have gotten his Keratin from then?
Celery has Keratin right?
I suppose that doesn't matter.
Tyrant Celery could have [had Keratin that is]!

Vanity Fair!

">
CHANNILLO

Brian's Vanity Fair Magazine Commentary for Bianca (2)
Series Info | Table of Contents

success of his ilk and essence obviously conveying that classic, Manhattan air, and I find myself wondering if this is the dignitary signing off on all the pages of ad space.

Or maybe it is he, decreeing from on high the amount of ads the reader must endure just to grace a look at the wonder that is...

the 'Vanity Fair.'

No... it is not about 'you' presenting 'us' 'your' money. It is about 'you' wanting to be closer... to Prestige.

It looks as if his leg is kicked up on his desk... but it’s just shadowing. I'm glad. He's too classy for antics. This is [legitimate] business after all. Though his crossed leg le...

Please subscribe to keep reading.

Table of Contents

Series Info