I picked up the May 2007 (second issue) of CT Slant, really
hoping I’d have something nice to say. And I do"the cover photo of a flock of seagulls is lovely, with interesting composition and suitable color. They also ran an ad for Marshalls, which is the kind of retail that is more in the price range of Hartford-area readers.
But my dreams of change vanished by page three, where expensive but cutting edge jewels (gem-encrusted skull and palm tree pendants) taunted the reader who can only buy the shiny red heels from Marshalls on the facing page.
Redefining Hip
This is about hope. When I critique the media, or anything, it is because I see the hidden potential. Here, I’m thinking that because of its glossy ubiquitousness, CT Slant could be a powerhouse if it wanted to be. But given the Editor’s Note, it sounds like this rebellious child of the Advocate-Courant lovefest is content with sucking. Alistair Highet writes:
We had a little gathering to launch CT Slant at Joe Black’s a few weeks ago, and it was a blast. […] We’re also encouraged by the enthusiasm with which you’ve embraced the magazine. We had a hunch we were on to a good thing and your letters and comments have been reassuring.
If this is sincere, then I can only surmise that the staff, along with a few hundred Slantistas, are able to settle for a disturbing level of mediocrity. And I guess it should not surprise me that later in this note, Highet shows an inability to discern affects from effects. Perhaps it’s a small matter, but life happens in the details.
Word choice matters. Deciding what to reveal in, for instance, a promotional piece on two upcoming Blues festivals, says a lot about who one believes the audience is. Again, if CT Slant is for a supernaturally hip audience, then why does Tipaldi, on page twelve, include a background on the origins of Blues?
John Boonstra’s (now former writer for the Hartford Advocate) review of the film Into Great Silence was somewhat more original, somewhat more edgy. But I can’t get away from the feeling that this magazine is nothing more than a glossed up version of the Hartford Advocate, which itself is nothing more than a string of classified ads and an events calendar. In the Age of the Internet, do we need another paper calendar?
The “Six Weeks Out” section only reinforces my instinct that there is nothing edgy at all about CT Slant. Of the things to do/people to see, they’ve listed Seinfeld, the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, and a few art exhibits feature well-known artists"Warhol, Dali, and Picasso. Surrealism and Pop-Art are cool, but these aren’t especially underground artists, and there is no unique twist. It’s not that I am demanding hipness from them"I’m just reminding them of their own promise that they printed back in the first issue.
What this keeps coming back to is a combination of old news being passed off as something fresh, and, of course, the bottom line. The “Window Shopping” section combines these two things marvelously when they write:
When did knitting become cool? It used to be a grandmother activity, but now hipsters everywhere can be seen knitting on the subway, in class, and at the coffee shop. (39)
Knitting became cool approximately five years ago, and I could be terribly wrong, but there ain’t no subways around these parts. Not unless Manhole Cover by the Highway has access to a station. Anyway, also on these pages are $19 hanks of yarn, $32 body scrub (even at my most wild, I don’t shell out that kind of money for body scrub), $160 jeans, and a gorgeous lamp available at a Hartford store for a whopping $218.95! But wait, turn the page, and find more things to get into debt for. There’s a $1,195 leather jacket, gift basket of scotch, and an azalea bush, which is about the only thing worth investing in.
It’s About the Wallet, Stupid!
If the direct advertisements don’t rock your world, then try reading about that Martha’s Vineyard getaway that the magazine claims is “posh but affordable.” Funny, they don’t list the prices of these supposedly affordable places one can stay on an island that is known for being expensive.
I understand that print is expensive (perhaps the independent media has even a better sense of this than those who seemingly have no trouble managing a press run of several thousand), and yet, the reading audience is even more important. When reading something like Vogue, I think there is an expectation that most readers cannot afford what is there, for the most part. But when it comes to local media, one would assume that the magazine would not attempt to be quite so lofty and unattainable. And despite what Hollywood would have us all believe, most of Connecticut does not look like the Hartford that is portrayed in the Gilmore Girls. In other words, we don’t all live in Greenwich and Simsbury.
Are We in the Post-Feminist Era Yet?
There’s truly too much failure in this magazine to report on adequately, but there is one final piece that I must mention, as it falls into neither the advertisement or million-years-behind the game categories. “Awakening from a Fashion Coma: How a Teenager Helped Me Overcome My Fear of Looking Pretty” is worse, as it goes beyond direct consumerism, and instead, reinforces some of the socialized garbage that make so many women, in particular, obsessed with appearance.
Disclaimer: I do not find anything wrong with caring about one’s appearance or even having a passion for fashion. Such things, with moderation and continued application of one’s ethics, can be healthy. Furthermore, one can be a feminist and enjoy these “petty” things; one can be a feminist and think these are “petty.”
Jacqueline Manning’s bio piece is frightening for a few reasons, the least of which is a grown woman seeking fashion advice from a teenager. The beginning says it all:
The divorce was final. I was redefining myself.
Although what follows explains that she is seeking a new career, hence the need for new clothes/look, it also can be read that she is redefining herself by this image. That’s fine, except that this whole “I got a divorce and I’m a whole new woman now” thing has become such a cliche. Why are we not encouraging women to be this strong and decisive during or even previous to marriage? It would seem that to pursue one’s goals, a woman must wait until the man is removed from the picture so that she does not need to bother herself with asking permission to change. Am I reading too much into this? Perhaps, but only because this kind of divorce-equals-permission-for-transformation bit is played out, and I’d like for women to be this assertive all of the time.
But really disturbing message in this essay was one revolving around femininity. Manning reveals that her teenaged makeover consultant explained to her that Manning was “‘afraid to express [her] femininity’” (35). Later, in a thankful tone, Manning writes:
In that one life-altering night, Nichole had driven out my long-held, unconscious perceptions that expressing my femininity would make me appear vulnerable to men. (37)
How can a long-held belief be dropped just like that, and why not talk about this point more? Presenting yourself in a certain way does make a female vulnerable"to men and to other women. Any attention to politics teaches us that women seeking political office had better embrace a degree of femininity because otherwise, they will be viewed as threatening. Why can’t we talk about how messed up that is? Manning had this opportunity, and blew it.
Share This
Sarah Jessica Parker is going to have some celebrity fashion competition on the racks at Steve & Barry’s. Before you ask, yes, I do mean THAT Steve & Barry’s, as in the place that sells college hoodies and sweats for 10 bucks each.