Got this yesterday; first off, "in next issue" says Keira Knightley on the next cover? I suppose she's riding high at the moment with Atonement, and she did look lovely at the premiere. I'm almost looking forward to seeing October's cover.
Back to the issue in hand. I see in her editor's note that Linda Wells thinks putting Paris Hilton on the cover is a no-no, and equates it to "a sign of apocalypse", but I'd ask, what's the difference between Paris and the tabloid-fodder life that Britney has been leading for the last two years or so? Currently her "career" consists of her personal problems on show to the world - and Allure's cover is playing its part in that coverage.
Yet she uses this editor's note to justify choosing it, as if to say "no, we're not like those scummy newspapers, we had real reasons for running it". But she didn't need to; she could have filled in with some last-minute shoot. She chose it because it would sell all the more with the new storyline of her further decline, with incidents that this magazine publicised ahead of its release. By all means, cash in on it, but spare me the most useless editor's note I've ever read, where Linda Wells tells me she had noble reasons for it, and every sympathy for Britney. I'll not even mention the article inside that talks more about how someone's uncle starred in Petrocelli than it does about anything else. I haven't read something as amateurish as this in a major magazine for a long time.
Imagine the Eugenia cover we could have had, in an ideal world, given her oh-so-short editorial inside, with tumbling hair. I can't complain about the rest of the contents – and certainly not about their decision to start naming their models. About time the star of the show got some credit.
