|
And now, Scary-Crayon presents...
Okay. If you're reading this site -- assuming you haven't found this article during a search for Oprah-related content and that you're not one of Oprah's lawyers come to demand that I cease and desist -- you're probably not too familiar with what I'm about to show you. I, on the other hand, am exceedingly familiar with the concentrated mind-numbing soul-sucking stupidity FROM THE VERY DEPTHS OF HELL that lies just beyond the cover of each and every single issue of "O, The Oprah Magazine". Actually, that's not true -- it's on the cover too. Here, have a look see.
Welcome to the Scary-Crayon review of the November 2003 issue of "The Oprah Magazine". We'll get to the articles in a minute, but if you've ever seen the beast on the stands, you know that her picture is on the cover of EVERY FUCKING ISSUE OF THE MAGAZINE EVER. I know it's called "The Oprah Magazine", but does it need to be such an obvious expression of her vanity? At least Rosie O'Donnell had Fran Drescher and Margaret Cho on the cover with her too. And look at that pose! Christ, look at it! SHE IS MOCKING YOU, PEOPLE! SHE IS LAUGHING AT YOU! And still they buy her fucking magazine. Unbelievable. However, since this is hopefully your first experience with "The Oprah Magazine", and since I'm not covering the entire thing in great detail, I'm going to stick that picture all over the fucking place to try and recreate the experience of actually reading the thing in print. Yes, I know it'll be horrible, but please bear with me. So let's see what we've got in this month's issue.
Comments: Alright readers, listen up. If "flaking away" is really an issue for you, you should probably be consulting "The Horrible Monsters Sewn Together From and Therefore Composed Entirely of Skin Magazine" instead of wasting your time with Oprah. For the rest of you, two words: use lotion. (Those of you who actually tortured yourselves by reading the article, however, will be quick to point out that lotions are actually the least effective of moisturizing products. Then you will shoot yourselves for knowing that.)
Comments: Now, I can understand blowing your diet -- happens to the best of us. Actually, it doesn't, because the best of us don't have to diet to begin with, but you understood my meaning. What confuses me is how "The Oprah Magazine" is going to help someone who has "forgotten where the gym is," unless Oprah's got an article about what to do after sustaining a violent head injury or about living with Alzheimer's disease. Besides, considering the abundance of things to forget, forgetting the location of the gym isn't all that bad. At least you didn't forget to wipe... (If you're a regular reader of "The Oprah Magazine", do yourself a favor and forget to pick up next month's issue.)
Comments: Admittedly, THIS one had me intrigued. And holy shit, check out the picture across from the title page of the article:
"Psychologist John Gottman puts murdering mates into two categories: pit bulls, who fear abandonment, and cobras, who fear being controlled." Even the caption sounds awesome, though I couldn't find a cobra anywhere in the picture. The cool factor, however, is quickly lost; the article begins with a bunch of headlines from spousal murder cases but quickly degenerates into a bullshit coddling session about how "it's okay to have homicidal feelings towards your spouse sometimes -- this is natural and healthy -- as long as you don't act on them." GAG ME. Well, no, don't gag me, but it's perfectly fine for you to think about gagging me and ripping out my intestines, so long as you don't actually do it. So then when we finally do get to the warning signs, they're just...oh hell, see for yourselves.
Your husband might KILL you if he's...
From the article: "Signs like these -- and even more obvious indicators of potential physical abuse -- slide under our collective radar all the time." IF YOU'RE A BLOODY IDIOT, in which case I guess Oprah knows her target audience fairly well. In my case, I don't think that I'd suspect a person of being a potential murderer if I noticed these signs, but they're pretty fucking hard to miss. Ah, this article had such potential. What about the husband who gets a hard on and an empty look in his eyes when he sees you handling raw hamburger meat? What about the guy who writes you love poems in blood which -- you discover one night when a prick wakes you up -- turns out to be yours? Hell, what about the classics -- the guy who's cruel to animals and shoves live hermit crabs up his anus? I'm not going any further. Oh, and the next boldfaced heading reads, "All crimes have a motive and a trigger." AMAZING! How's your head?
It's gonna get worse. Comments: "Does your HAIR make your hips look big?" Bloody hell, where to begin. Fucking ridiculous. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A WOMAN WHOSE HAIR MADE HER HIPS LOOK BIG! I've seen plenty of women whose FAT made their hips look big, but never ever with the HAIR. In fact, unless I see a woman from far away, it's hard for me to take in both her hips and her hairdo at the same time. The only effect that I can conceivably see a woman's hair having upon her hips is to make them look smaller, and that's only if she wears it down to her fucking knees and wraps it around her body like in that one Shel Silverstein limerick, in which case she's got bigger problems than her hips anyday. People buy this magazine, folks. Is my frustration really starting to show? I think it is. What the hell made me think that reviewing this magazine was a good idea. My god. Oh well, too late to stop now. Let's meet the guinea pigs for Oprah's latest makeover session.
DO ANY OF THESE WOMEN'S HIPS LOOK BIGGER BECAUSE OF HER HAIR?!?!?! The only two whose hips look big at all are Sam and Nicole, and that could be because neither Sam nor Nicole is on the petit side -- both of them look like they could be serious contenders in the WWE, and I wouldn't be surprised if a future story arc revealed that Nicole and Rikishi are related. As for the others, I kind of like Loreta's look, and Sabrina's 80s big hair is working for her. Oh, also note the "HAIR CRIMES" header and the lineup theme. Really original there, Oprah.
And here are the results. Nicole, admittedly, looks a whole lot better, but her hips don't look smaller in the least. Sam doesn't look any better at all, just a little different. The others look worse. Regarding Cathy -- honey, you're 45 years old and it shows. Stop trying to look like a teen idol or a sitcom star, thanks; Reba's got that angle covered. By the way, they actually have quotes from the women on their new makeovers. Here's what Cathy had to say: "I always used to feel as if my hair was messy; now I think I'll be taken seriously." I shit you not. Moving on, Sabrina's head looks twice as big as it did before, since the hair isn't there to distract us from her huge forehead. And Loreta, you were way cooler with the long hair and without the phony smile. Ah, the smiling. Did you notice that at home, folks? This phenomenon isn't unique to this article, by the way -- anytime you've got a "before/after" deal, it goes without saying that these people will try to look as mean and miserable as possible in the "before" shot, whereas in the "after" image they'll wear smiles so wide it fucking causes them pain. Actually, there's an exception -- sometimes in the weight loss commercials the person will be hugging a small child and smiling in the "fat" picture. But unless there's a drastic change in the person's appearance that would be apparent even in the absence of the sad/happy switch, someone's gonna try and deceive you with this tactic. DON'T BE FOOLED! Yes, you may -- may -- look better with a new hairdo and a smile, but NEITHER ONE WILL MAKE YOUR HIPS LOOK SMALLER.
Oh, you'll notice that I haven't had anything to say about Kim. That's because she really doesn't do anything for me either way, although I think the longer hair looks better on her. Still, to be fair, I'll let her speak for herself: "I wish I'd done this ten years ago." Considering that you're 46 now, Kim, that probably wouldn't have been a bad idea.
So that about wraps up the review of the November 2003 issue of The Oprah Magazine. Oh, there's tons more content in the mag -- it's around 300 pages -- but I think I'd better stop soon before our heads implode because of the vacuum Oprah intends to create inside each and every one of our skulls. Oh yes, she's on a mission. "For the first time in my adult life, I feel part of a community" That's a quote from the final article of the piece, in which Oprah talks about how she's not a social person -- despite the fact that she hosts a daily talk show with a huge audience and on which she spends her time interrupting her guests, putting words into their mouths, and offering her own lengthy personal anecdotes that really have nothing to do with whatever the show's purported topic is. But that's not true, is it? The topic of the show is Oprah. It's always about Oprah. Just like every single issue of this fucking magazine that has ever been printed. And why's that? Because...
Comments: We're doomed.
Just click the image above! Simple, no? ;)
|
by: 
