Deluge of "Sassy" nostalgia

While avoiding work yesterday, I came across a blog post about the new book about the beloved "Sassy" magazine. It is remarkable to consider how much that magazine shaped my life; without it, I am sure that I would not be the reader, writer or observer that I am. And it's not just me: to a woman, each of my close friends who is my age feels the same way about the magazine. These are women who grew up in different places, in different situations, all of whom felt that the revolutionary no-bullshit publication profoundly impacted their lives for the better. We're talking about some smart women here: wherever you find an articulate, funny, aware 30- to 35-year-old, you find a woman who read "Sassy" in the late '80s and early '90s (before it was taken over from Jane Pratt in 1995 and had the life systematically extinguished from it).

While participating in a little more work-avoidance today, I decided to search eBay for back issues of "Sassy." (It is a well-established fact that I am still furious with my mother for throwing away all my back issues when I went to college. I have a friend who has this same long-standing anger with her mother for the exact same reason.) Issue #1 has a "Buy It Now" price of $400. You can pick up July 1989 for a mere $200. More interesting than the issues' value, however, is the fact that I remember each and every one of the covers. Obviously this one:

But also this one (I loved that "beauty tips for procrastinators" font):

And (for some reason) this 1990 cover:


(I remember being completely fascinated by this sparse cover. So unlike the screaming, chaotic, marginless, over-punctuated covers of some other teen magazines.)

Anyway: my point. Sometimes, back then, I read "YM." Can't remember a single article or cover image. "Sassy" was so powerful in its conception and execution that, 17 years later, the magazine's covers -- let alone the intelligent and unique content -- still bring back a rush of youthful memories and optimism.

I still like the title's vertical cursive font

I've been anticipating Issue No. 2 of Martha Stewart's new magazine, Blueprint, since I tore through Issue No. 1 many moons ago. Today was my lucky day, I learned, as husband called me this afternoon to deliver the good news that, yes, indeed, Martha's new gospel was here.

Then I arrived home and got a good look at the cover.

Standing next to a wall that's been painted a saturated, marine shade of blue is a thirtysomething woman, looking over her shoulder and smiling. Her hair is pulled back in a neat pony tail, not unlike Charlotte York-Goldenblatt. She is wearing an impossibly stylish outfit on her impossibly skinny frame: some sort of yellow puffy-sleeved blouse and a scallop-hem skirt that looks like it's made from gray suede. Her earrings could be pearl; they could be silver. They are understated and perfect. Her teeth, gleaming. Her eyebrows, attractively arched.

To her right is an obedient Jack Russell Terrier, standing happily on a wooden bench. Hung on the wall just to the right of the model's head is a round mirror with a thick, dark wood frame.

Reflected distantly in the small mirror is the woman's perfect life. A handsome man is seated on a tailored sofa. He is more presentable than most husbands and, as such, appears a little gay-looking. On his lap, a cute little smiling child. Another Jack Russell reclines calmly under the sofa. The table behind the sofa holds several books displayed horizontally and topped with some sort of anvil-shaped bowl. I'm certain the books' topics are worldy and sophisticated. Next to this intellectual still-life is a small vase from which protrudes a few artfully placed branches in an austere arrangement. I'm sure the rug underneath it all is sisal. And I'm sure the apartment is meant to be in Manhattan.

Notice I said that this vignette of a perfect life is reflected "distantly." It is not the focus. The focus is on her, and how happy all those things over there make her. How they inspire her to train her dog and sew her suede skirt and lose all her baby weight and whiten her teeth and singlehandedly revive the puffy shirt and choose perfect paint colors.

Then you reach page 6. Where Blueprint's new editor-in-chief, Sarah Humphreys, tells you all about her new apartment. It is less than 300 square feet, and she has not yet unpacked her belongings. She's photographed sitting in a slouchy white chair with some books, boxes and newspapers strewn about. No (gay) husband and cooing tot for her; no Jack Russell, let alone two. You can't possibly actually have all that, even if you are the EIC of a Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia publication.

This cover, with its round mirror and its flawless imagery, is a porthole to a better life, one you can't have even if you're the freaking editor-in-chief of Blueprint. What chance do the rest of us have?

Where is the little empowered women's magazine I carried?

From the New York Post, regarding Jane magazine:

"The November issue [the first since Jane Pratt left] has a neon logo cover. There's a push to make it a little more mass market, but that's never what Jane was about."

Told you.

Makes me yearn for my callously-discarded back issues of Sassy

My subscription to Jane expired sometime last year, and I didn't renew simply because I was receiving an excessive number of magazines in the mail each month. I just couldn't keep up with all of them, even if some titles didn't involve much actual reading (Lucky).

Now comes the news that Jane Pratt is leaving Jane. It sounds like things had gotten ugly for her, and while I haven't read the magazine in a while I have to admit that I like the idea of the old Sassy staffers still being out there (at Lucky, ELLEgirl, but thankfully not Teen People because that Lori Majewski has got to go with her terrible wardrobe and jewelry). It's comforting to imagine that they're still influencing young women to be interesting and interested, even if Jane was the only publication overtly carrying that torch (there's no "Cute Band Alert" in Lucky, sadly). But now....

I am almost certain that Jane will cease being Jane without Jane.