Magazines often fall back on the "Audrey Hepburn" look to promote Mid century and 60's fashion revivals, as` you have in the description of this coat. Her unusually thin figure, and well known face could wear this coat,but most women have neither. The beautiful icon that was Audrey Hepburn gained that figure starving in occupied WW2 Europe; a price most of us wouldn't pay for fashion.
Dear Ms. Seymour,
Pin a plastic flower to my shoes? To my lapel? Purchase a sleeveless dress I have to modify with a sweater in order to wear it? How aging is that? Add shoes difficult and dangerous to walk in, and “old lady perfume,” and horizontal stripes--- enough! What were you thinking? In my mind’s eye I can see the sorting going on at your place. Was the sixty- year-old category the default pile?
Okay, maybe I’m a little pissed off because I’m seventy and my category fell off the chart. I’m slim and in good shape and take care of what I have. I’m lucky.
I’ve also paid attention over the years to what looks good on me and other people. When to cover up and when to flaunt, require an unflinching eye. For example, I want clothes I can move in--- grounding basics mostly in black and cosmetic colors like periwinkle blue, plum, and bright navy. A couple of inches of heel makes me feel less chopped off. A great handbag that goes for a number of years is worth it. I want to feel unselfconscious and confident and the forget what I am wearing.
I like your magazine but this article doesn’t do you justice.
I am a big fan and just want to pass along some comments on your recent issue.
1. Please, please do not try to be all things to all people. You can’t have a cover blurb that refers to your 30s on the cover…and still expect to be credible to those of us in our 50s and beyond. (Do the 30-somethings even know Connie Britton? Or that Patti Davis, who penned the essay, is Ronald Reagan’s daughter?)
2. The younger generation that you’re trying to attract on the cover would rather die than be known as a “handsome woman” (another feature in the current issue).
3. On the story about aging secrets many of the women you feature plug their own skin products. Again, it damages credibility. (Like when you see a favorable restaurant review next to an ad for the same restaurant). I realize you can’t change their response, but perhaps the interviewer can pose the question this way: “Other than your own products…”
As I mentioned, I have been a regular reader of your magazine since its inception. But I’ve noticed a watering down of your original mission (which, frankly, I don’t see in “Oprah”) and it makes your voice seem less authentic, less “one of us.”
I know that the magazine business is tough these days, but there should be enough of us aging baby boomers (and fans of smart editing) around to make you a “must-read.”
I have generally enjoyed More, and I always have the latest copy in my office waiting room. Unfortunately, two stories in recent issues have led me to decide to remove the magazine from my waiting room and to let my subscription expire when the current term ends. The stories featuring Katie Couric and Connie Britton were excellent, but the accompanying photos were, in my opinion, demeaning. Both women were described as smart and strong and independent people, but the photos portrayed them as sex kittens. The skimpy clothing and the seductive poses were such a stark mismatch with the content of the articles. I was baffled by the choice to produce these photos. I think it gives the wrong message to your readers, suggesting that no matter how successful a woman is in her career, her public appearance should always emphasize her sexual qualities. I hope you will consider portraying smart, strong, successful women who do not have to be photographed as sex objects.