RIP, jane (and wtf, fairchild?)

i love jane magazine. love love love...

well, loved.

we had a brief falling-out a few years ago when they put britney on the cover, but we had made up until jane booted jane.

and brought in brandon?

what?

brandon holly?

brandon teena?

i'm so confused. where did jane go?

oh - the talk show circuit. to discuss a lesbian romp with drew barrymore in the early 90's?

what?

whatever.

the writers are still there, they're still witty and irreverent, and i still run upstairs and immediately plop down on the couch to read the magazine cover-to-cover (back to front -- don't ask why) every time it arrives.

until *poof*, it's gone.

and in its place, glamour?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

that's what the site says. that's what the blogs say. they're going to send me glamour. i like jane because it's the ANTI-cosmo, and now you're going to send me a second-rate, cosmo-wannabe?? why can't you send me something i actually like? W, perhaps? or vogue? i am sad, and fairchild publications needs to atone for my loss. they even usurped jane's site: janemag.com. *sigh*

so the next month, i open my stuffed mailbox and pout, missing jane and expecting to pull out my new glamour. blah. but i'll read it because i'm a magazine whore with a limited attention span. and, sadly, i may even like it.

or not.

instead, i pulled out redbook?!?!??!?!?!?!!!!!

wtf, fairchild? "for the woman juggling family, career, and her own needs"?!?!?!?!?!?

to top it off, the november issue has a huge toys-r-us insert in the middle. I DO NOT HAVE KIDS, PEOPLE!!!!!!! nor do i WANT them! nor do i want to READ about them!!!!!

(that's why i have nieces and nephews. know what kind of candy they like and give them back to their parents when they become a pain in the arse. done.)

stupid redbook.

although this last one did have ashley judd on the cover, and she is pretty awesome.... she would've been in jane.