My mom buys "Us" Magazine so you don't have to

Well, you won't be seeing any "My wife reads People..." posts here anymore because while "People" continues to crank out its glossy infotainment each week, I no longer have a wife. Fortunately I have another female family member to throw under the bus (and, no, those posts aren't the reason I no longer have a wife--at least I don't think so). My wonderful mother was helping me get situated at the new Cultureshark Tower, and she got an "Us Magazine" at the store and left it for me to read.

After a few days, I succumbed and invested the 3 minutes necessary to read it. I won't even rant about the 40 pages of stars that are "just like us" juxtaposed with 40 more pages of red carpet photos that prove they're not. But one of those red carpet pages did irritate me. It's an inane collection of 3 paired photos, each  challenging us to decide "Who Wore It Best?" Here's the kicker: All these photos are of little kids, and most are toddlers.

We don't even have to think too hard deciding which preschooler wore Nico Nico or Stella McCartney better--probably good for us--because "US asked 100 people in NY's Rockefeller Center," and we see the results. Now, I hope these 100 people, assuming they, you know, exist, didn't actually consider the question. I'm picturing someone on their way to a hot dog cart (like my vivid depiction of life in Manhattan?) pointing at one of the pictures and shaking their head as they rush on to grab a quick bite.

At least these kids are celebrities--Matthew Broderick's girls (I assume), a Jolie-Pitt kid, David Beckham's son, two other little girls (sorry, never heard of them)--but still! Even if this feature is intended to be tongue in cheek, it's still presenting little kids in some kind of fashion competition. This ridiculous feature makes the next page of content, an look at Katie Couric's "Secret Love Life," look like a piece in "Foreign Affairs."

Let's just say that until I remarry, or until my mother returns for a visit, we won't be seeing many pieces about "People" and "Us" on this site.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to

Well, just as I feared, the July 25 issue does not stack up to the loaded July 18 edition of "People" magazine. However, there was one useful piece of info I gleaned when I accidentally read it.

The "One Last Thing" feature on the mag's back page, which is part of the "Chatter" department, or maybe it's the other way around, features short takes on various issues from a different BIG STAR. The July 25 issue spotlights Chris "Captain America/Human Torch/Other characters in non-comic-book movies" Evans.

One of the things "People" asks Evans is the last greeting card he sent. This is vital info, of course, which makes Evans' response disappointing: "I'm a guy. I don't do that stuff."

Actually, forget disappointing; this statement is puzzling. He implies that REAL men don't "do" greeting cards. I assume by "guy," Evans means "single guy without attachments or any close relationship with family members whatsoever," because I don't quite buy his premise.

I mean, I've never claimed to be Ed Asner or anything, but I like to think I'm macho enough. Yet I often send and give greeting cards. If guys are excused from doing this, or worse, if they should NOT do this, I wish to hell my wife, kids, parents, siblings, and other relatives would get the memo because at 2, 3, 4 bucks a pop, the tally adds up, and I could use the extra cash. I mean, with all that coin I save from skipping out on greeting cards, I could go buy some macho products like Axe body spray or maybe a new chest medallion.

I don't think this is gonna fly with my loved ones, but I don't doubt Chris Evans. After all, he's Captain By God America, and he must know what it is to be a guy. Check that: an AMERICAN guy. Maybe those Frenchmen send greeting cards to their mothers every now and then, but not us good ol' red-blooded American males.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to

Folks, I have accidentally read some issues of "People" magazine my wife left laying around before, but the July 18 issue was a real doozy. Let's hit some of the highlights in order:

On page 22, we get the requisite Jen/Justin update. Yes, Aniston and Theroux are "going strong!" This only pages after a pic of Aniston at an event accompanied by the caption, "You call THIS horrible?" Oh, and the "freshly shaven" Theroux, according to a source, "seemed to fit in perfectly with Aniston's close-knit crew" during a night on the town. Do I hear wedding bells?

Page 47 brings an odd blurb about the new La Toya Jackson tome, "Starting Over." The mag writes, "Michael's big sister shares memories and unconvincing theories about his death. Includes fun family photos." Huh? Talk about a tone shift. This is all there is about the book. So is that a thumb up or down? And we know the bit about the fun family photos is not an ironic juxtaposition but just "People's" own awkward juxtaposition because of the lack of an ! at the end.

On page 51, the books section continues with a piece on Keanu Reeves' new poetry book. No comment necessary.

On page 78 is a profile of two supporting characters from "Real Housewives of New Jersey"--two supporting characters. You know, I mention this in case you think the magazine has been too literary to this point.

Investigation Discovery takes out a full-page ad to promote a show titled "Who the (Bleep) Did I Marry?" Go get 'em, Investigation Discovery!

Christina Hendricks is the subject of the Beauty Watch profile near the end. The best thing about this feature, of course, is that not only do we get her beauty tips and favorite things, but we get brand names and info about where to buy them! What a public service.

On the back cover is a "Project Runway" ad featuring a naked Heidi Klum. OK, this page is actually pretty good.

I can't wait to see if the July 25 issue is loaded with as much useful info as this one!

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: What's really important

The July 11 issue of "People" Magazine is a solid return to form for the publication because it gets back to its business of delivering information about what really, really MATTERS to its readers. "People" readers, which is really all of us by proxy, it's just that some of us have wives who read it do we don't have to, don't care about high-profile trials or the royals. Well, they care about these things, but it's not the true priority at the top of the list. They don't even care most about Brad and Angelina, except as how it relates to the one thing that really matters to everyone.

Yes, if you read "People" and even the other celebrity rags out there, you KNOW what the most important thing in life is, the single topic most vital to the collective readership, and that is the constant effort to answer the following question:
Is Jennifer Aniston happy?

And of course, those of us who follow these periodicals know that the only way we can even entertain the possibility that Jen is happy is if she is in a satisfying relationship with a hot guy.

Well, the July 11 issue tells us that Jen is crazy for her latest man, Justin Theroux, and the two of them are doing just fine together. In fact, a photo that takes up nearly two whole pages, 55 and 56, shows the delighted couple enjoying life together.

Maybe this'll be the one, we think. Maybe it'll stick. Maybe Jen has finally found a man and can therefore--finally--be happy.

But if Justin isn't the one, we can rest assured "People" will update us on the newest round in poor Jennifer Aniston's never-ending quest to find fulfillment in the form of an attractive male celebrity companion.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: Engaged again?

So I was not reading a stack of "People" magazines my wife had left out, as I often do, when I saw the May 23 issue--you know, the one spotlighting Pippa Middleton, the royal sister-in-law who supposedly stole the show at the Bill/Kate wedding. Got to hand it to the media for not only obsessing over the main event nuptials, but also launching a new star to obsess over.

But what caught my eye was not Pippa, but the photo inset and text at the lower right-hand corner of the cover: "Paul McCartney Engaged!"

Now, I had heard about this story but had tried to forget about it, and seeing it right there in living color on a magazine my wife reads but I don't, well, that just puts it right in my face.

I think all faithful Beatlemaniacs who see that headline have the same reaction: Please, please, please, let him be engaged...in a spirited series of recording sessions with some other talented musicians. Let him be engaged in a good book. Hell, let him even be engaged in a Twitter feud with Noel Gallagher (is Noel the jerk, or is it Liam? I can never keep that one straight. And is he on Twitter? Because think of the havoc he would have caused were he tweeting back in the nineties).

Just don't let him be engaged to be married again.

Sure, it's cynical to think Paul and Nancy Shevell, his new bride-to-be won't make it, or to doubt that they really are head over heels in love with each other. And I'm not attempting to make the case that women can't be trusted or anything silly like that. But after the last marriage went sour, it just seems a little soon for Sir Paul to get back into matrimony. 2020 would seem too soon, actually.

With a lump in my throat, I looked inside at the article. I saw a picture of the ring (it's huge) and read tidbits like Paul and Nancy are a great match because they're both reserved and avoid seeking attention (sure; in fact, I think Macca is calling his current World Tour the Not Seeking Attention Tour), but I didn't see the one vital bit of information that would make the story useful.

"People" really missed it on this one, gang: Not one word about a pre-nup.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to

If there's one issue of "People" magazine I look forward to reading by accident only because my wife left it laying around as opposed to actually sitting down and deliberately perusing it because, hey, I never do that, it's the "Most Beautiful Person" issue. This year, I stumbled on the mag, which anointed Jennifer Lopez, and was prepared to go through and take exception to their ratings.

Only there is no ranking. It's J-Lo is the Goddess, and here are some features on other beautiful women. I guess I was confusing "People" with "Maxim," and let me tell you, sometimes I wish my wife would confuse the two because often I'd rather see the latter in my house, BUT she never does.

So I really have nothing more to say about this year's edition.

However, I also accidentally read the May 2 issue, and I took note of the upbeat profile of legendary soul diva Aretha Franklin, who appears to be on the mend after suffering from unspecified "serious health problems" last year. Aretha is still mum about what major surgery she had--she denies the gastric bypass rumors--but she is lighter, healthier, and rarin' to go. Why, just look at this quote about her bucket list that closes the article:

"And she jokes about one last entry on it: sticking around long enough to make the 'Today' show's centenarian segment. 'I'll be at least 100,' she says, 'and Al Roker will be bent over there, showing my picture!'"

Putting aside the horror of reading any sentence including the phrase "Al Roker will be bent over," I think we should applaud the Queen of Soul. It's an inspiration to all of us that at her advanced age, after everything that this woman has accomplished, she still has such lofty goals.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: Sweet Valley update

"People" spotlights "Sweet Valley Confidential" as its "Buzz Book" in the book section of its April 18 issue, and if you think I'm going to mock that selection, well, you're wrong. I mean, give "People" credit for even having a book section, and besides, a lot of its readers may well be interested in what the "Sweet Valley High" twins are up to in this "series reboot" from author Francine Pascal.

(Before you ask, I have no vested interest in the franchise. I had a passing familiarity with the series through my little sisters...and of course the haunting theme song to the TV series).

What amuses me is the way the mag summarizes how the characters have changed, in a paragraph titled..."How They've Changed":

They're on Facebook and listen to Beyonce.

Is this all it takes to denote "modern women" these days? Perhaps this is just "People's" shorthand speaking and not an accurate reflection of how Pascal has updated her characters, but I don't know, that sounds a little shallow and generic. I just had to laugh at the thought of an author hunched over her keyboard, straining to connect with today's 27-year-old and reconcile who her famous twins should be with her readers' conceptions of who they were. "I got it! They listen to Beyonce! And they'll use Facebook a lot!"

Then, in the paragraph titled "Should You Read It," "People's" Clarissa Cruz writes:

"Sweet Valley Confidential" is poorly written and out of touch...and the characters have gotten even more oblivious and superficial with age. But if you once devoured "Sweet Valley" books like bonbons, it's a confection you won't be able to resist."

Hmm. Sounds an awful lot to me like, "If you're still lightweight enough to have read the lightweight stuff you read as a teen, you'll eat this up. " Maybe "People" isn't as benevolent to its audience as I thought.

Oh, and elsewhere in this issue, we learn Sacha Baron Cohen and Isla Fisher attended Reese Witherspoon's wedding. Why? I don't know. "People" can't answer everything for you, you know. Sometimes you gotta do a little research yourself.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: Mandy Moore

OK, so I just happened to be leafing through the recent double issue with Charlie Sheen on the cover, and when I got to the Oscars coverage, I was stunned to see a pic of Mandy Moore. I was stunned because it sure as heck didn't look like her. She looked a little...I don't know, off, which concerned me a bit because, hey, hasn't she had eating disorder issues in the past?

But then I looked at the rest of the article, and she looked like herself in all the other shots. The pics came from the same time frame, I think, which was the day of the Academy Awards. So what was up with that first photo, which made her look more like a sickly Jennifer Garner (not intended as an insult to Jennifer Garner, by the way)?

Well, look for yourself. Get that issue and turn to page...turn to page...eh, I don't have the mag handy anymore. Sorry. I guess I'm making it so you actually DO have to read "People," huh?

Well, I'll make it up to you by answering the question posed on the cover without even looking at the article myself: "What happened to Charlie Sheen?" Well, he drugged and partied himself into a state of incoherence. Duh. There you go, no need to read that story.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: Christina Applegate

So the latest issue of "People" magazine, or at least the most recent one which has happened to be open when I've walked by and seen it, has a review of "Hall Pass." It's a negative review, which is not surprising given the generally poor critical and commercial reaction to the film.

What catches my eye is the little sidebar the mag places under the review, a box proclaiming that Christina Applegate is "Rom-Com's Best Best Friend" or something silly like that. She is apparently the best thing about "Hall Pass" and all the other crappy movies she's played the "friend" role in over the last decade or so.

Why does "People" need to highlight Applegate's performance in an underwhelming comedy that will soon be forgotten? I don't know, but, say, did I mention who was on the cover of the magazine the week before? Appearing in a big cover story after giving access to photos of herself with her new baby daughter? After giving the mag the scoop that she was expecting in the first place way back in the summer?

Give up? It was...Christina Applegate. Hmm.

Just sayin'.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: Demi and Ashton

A recent issue promised THE REAL STORY behind the turmoil in the Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher relationship. That's right, the real story! So for all you plebeians who have been forced to get your info on this vital topic by wading through "The Daily Demi" or "The Kutcher Post and Intelligencer," well, "People" is just the news source for you!

The cover asks, can the 5-year relationship stand the strain? Well, a careful examination of the story inside reveals the answer is...maybe. It depends. And THAT, ladies and gents, is the real story.

Elsewhere on the cover is a prominent blurb about "Jennifer Grey's Big Comeback!" When this issue came to the house, I chuckled at that one and made a wise-ass remark along the lines of, "Didn't she have her big comeback about 10 years ago?" And Mrs. Shark, who sometimes rivals even yours truly for knowledge of celebrity news (after all, she reads "People") reminded me she just had cancer. Oops. Permission to withdraw wise-ass remark, your honor.

The third story blurbed on the cover involves a horrific series of home invasion murders, and there is nothing jokeworthy about that. I guess you could fault me for even mentioning it, but I say instead we fault "People" for the awful juxtaposition of a legitimate tragedy with the dissolution--nay, possible dissolution--of an inane celebrity business partnersh--I mean, romantic relationship. Yeah! So there, "People!"

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: Kate Gosselin

When I go long stretches without reporting on "People" magazine, I worry that my loyal readers will panic and feel that, indeed, they now have to read it themselves. Yes, it's true that I have not read it--er, stumbled upon an open issue that my wife left laying around the house, that is--but I realized the other day I've neglected y'all. So to make amends, I dug up the most significant issue of the year: That's right, the one with Kate Gosselin on the cover promising to tell us how she got her buff beach bod.

Is it natural? Is it surgically enhanced? Is there witchcraft involved?

Well, according to Kate--get ready, folks, her position on this is a shocker--it's all natural. Apart from the tummy tuck she had a few years ago--and, come on, those don't count--she just worked hard to get that fabulous bikini body. Breast enhancements? Pshaw! Botox? Puh-leez!

Don't you feel better now?

Elsewhere in the article, Kate whines about not being able to meet a nice guy. Apparently the "losers" that leer at her aren't good enough. Her complaints make me chuckle. Let's see here. Now, granted, she does look pretty good in "People," but looks aren't everything. We know that Kate Gosselin is 1) Divorced, 2) Mother of 8 children (last I checked), 3) Addicted to being on television in whatever format will accept her, 4) Quite possibly a raving, controlling maneater. And if WE know that, you can bet those nice doctors and lawyers (I'm assuming she's ruled out the plastic surgeons and divorce lawyers) for whom she clamors know it, too.

Yep, no baggage here!

My wife reads "People" so you don' t have to ROUNDUP

I got behind in reading--er, I mean posting these tidbits that my wife gets, but that's OK because "People" got even with us by not sending us--I mean her--an issue for the past two weeks.

But important NEWS and FACTS never go out of date, so here is a roundup of some vital poop from recent issues.

ITEM: Claire Danes went as a refrigerator for Halloween. Making costumes for the holiday is her "Random Hobby," according to the back-page feature "6 Revelations from..." This feature is a godsend for all of us who long dreamed "People" could somehow cram even more valuable insight into its pages.

And how did she make her fridge costume? She wore all white and put magnets all over herself. Sounds like she didn't miss too much time on the set while putting that one together.

ITEM: "Jersey Shore" "star" Snooki "tells Scoop exclusively that she's 'very, very happy' with Emilio Masella." Scoop, of course, is "People's" front-of-the mag repository for INSIDER INFO! Boy, is it ever! Well, now we know. Snooki is very, very happy!

ITEM: Charlize Theron is moving on! She "hasn't looked back" since splitting from longtime beau Stuart Townsend. In fact, according to the mag, "She's hit the gym, lunched with pals, and spent a night on the town with old friend Jeremy Renner." That she's done these activities clearly demonstrates she has put that 9-year relationship behind her!

My wife reads People so you don't have to: Jen Aniston's Top 5 Moments

I'll spare you my rant about how overrated a celebrity Jennifer Aniston is, how she is disproportionately famous merely for having slept with Brad Pitt, etc. Instead, I'll give "People" the benefit of the doubt and presume it put her on its February 1 cover because it has new insight into that darned frustrating love life of hers, something a little more substantial than pointing out it's the fifth anniversary of when he dumped her.

Nah. I have to admit, I had no idea Laura Dern was "a trusted confidante." But the mag DOES offer a real treat: Jen's Top 5 Single Girl Moments." To wit:

1) FLAUNTING HER KILLER BODY: The "GQ" cover. Posing naked is, in this case, not demeaning or desperate, but the best revenge. I can never tell when it's OK for women to pose naked and when it isn't. I think all the women's mags should get together and establish some clear ground rules.

2) REBOUNDING PERFECTLY: Vince Vaughn was "the ideal fling" according to "People," which must make thousands of single women thankful the magazine doesn't operate a matchmaking service.

3) MAKING HIT MOVIES: Marley and Me was a hit, as the text reminds us. I guess "The Break-Up" was, too. OK, that's two, so I guess the S in "MOVIES" is justified.

4) DATING YOUNGER: As "People" cites, John Mayer and Bradley Cooper (and that, much like her fling with Gerard Butler, is of course in no way manufactured for publicity purposes, right?). Aniston is 41, and Cooper is 35. Whoo-hoo! You GO, girl! What a cradle robber!

5) TAKING DREAM VACATIONS: "She unwinds (and rocks a bikini) the way we all wish we could." Yep, I'm sure Brad Pitt has been eating his heart out every time he sees a shot on the beach while he's trapped in a dull existence with his unglamorous mate, a lifestyle that never sees them make headlines by traveling anywhere.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: Heidi Montag's surgery obsession

First, let me assure you, dear readers, that Santa Claus renewed my wife's "People" subscription for another year, so as long as you check in here at regular intervals, you can till 2011 without actually reading the magazine. I just hope Santa went through a discounter; he could have saved a bundle by not going through the mag itself.

The January 25 issue features the headline "ADDICTED TO PLASTIC SURGERY" with a picture of the latest version of psuedo-celebrity Heidi Montag. Time to roll out the caveats here: I don't care about Heidi Montag, I think it's ridiculous "People" even gives her a front cover, and I think it's sad that Montag is so desperate for publicity she will reveal all this on the cover of a national publication.

Having said all that, as I look at the before and after (after 1o procedures in a single day, supposedly) pictures, a thought comes to mind. Ladies, you might want to check out here. The Alan Alda-type guys, too--stop back for my next post, "This Week in DVD."

OK, here goes. Heidi Montag, whoever she is--and she sure doesn't look like she used to--looks better than she did before. Am I crazy for saying that? I don't want to encourage excessive amounts of plastic surgery--I don't wish to encourage any cosmetic surgery, for that matter--but in this case, I kind of have to say well done. Whatever Beverly Hills Nip/Tucker put this together turned out an acceptable generic-looking Hollywood starlet.

The thing that gets me now, though, is the cover of the new "Life and Style" I saw at the grocery store on Monday. THIS magazine touts a story on Montag's "PLASTIC SURGERY NIGHTMARE!" Thus confuses me because, though I have not read the "People" article and will not in the future, the captions and pictures indicate she is pleased with her 10-in-1 tour de force.

Which magazine gets it right? Well, unfortunately for you, my wife does NOT read "Life and Style," so if you want to read it, you're gonna have to actually read it.

First Impulse: Taylor Swift is very successful, but intriguing?

Understand that while I;m not a fan of Taylor Swift's music, I'm impressed by the way she carries herself and am happy for her success. But when "People" names her the most intriguing person of 2009, well, I have to speak up a bit.

I haven't read the issue yet--my wife hasn't even read the issue yet--so I apologize in advance if they reveal a clever formula that proves in empirical fashion that Ms. Swift is the most intriguing person of the year. But, hey, this is a First Impulse.

This is a terrible choice. It may sell magazines, and that's ultimately the point of lists and especially covers, but "People" has ample opportunities to put Swift on a cover without putting her on top of this group. See, it is my opinion that Swift's appeal is based on her wholesome persona, the fact she can still sing convincingly about princesses and white dresses and getting swept away and all that.

I don't want to "dis" that kind of persona; in fact, as father of a young girl, I'm glad that something so relatively tame can exist and thrive in today's culture. But I don't find it intriguing. I find it likable, charming, even refreshing, but not really intriguing at all. In fact, I think Taylor Swift's appeal is in her utter lack of intrigue. There's no mystery about her. She appears to be what she's selling, and while I don't think it can possibly be as genuine as you'd hope, the minute she drops that approach is the minute she loses a lot of that appeal.

It might make her more intriguing but less marketable, maybe even more intriguing AND more marketable. But right now what in the world makes her "intriguing"? The fact that she sells a helluva lot of records? The fact that Nashville and the music industry has latched onto her and is intent on boosting her to superstardom?

The bottom line is, she seems like a NICE girl, and I'm kind of glad she's not intriguing...at least not by my standards. Even her fanbase probably thinks of her as "real" or "cool," but intriguing?

My Wife reads "People" so you don't have to: The REAL STORY of Kate and Tom's marriage!

Before we get into the thrilling REAL STORY behind the scenes of Katie and Tom's marriage--or Tom and Katie's, if you prefer--let me assure loyal readers that though I haven't posted about "People" in a while, in the meantime, my wife has continued reading it, thereby ensuring you don't have to. So if there is ever a dry spell of a few weeks between these reports, please don't feel you have to run out to the grocery store and get a copy. I may not be reporting directly, but my wife is still reading "People."

The December 7 issue is too good not to write about. I just can't risk anyone missing the REAL STORY "People" touts on the cover. We all want to know the REAL STORY behind this marriage, don't we? Darn right we do! C'mon, folks, just gimme some truth!

Lots of rumors and wild stories swirl around the TomKat relationship, but "People" is hear to clear it up. Open the December 7 issue, and you will indeed get the truth, courtesy of an impeccable source, a gentleman who graciously consents to share with the magazine the REAL STORY about pesky negative rumors like the supposed marriage contract they share.

The source is Tom Cruise's attorney, Bert Fields. He tells us the REAL STORY is...

that the rumors are false. There is no contract. Everything is fine. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes live together happily in a loving marriage.

THAT is the REAL STORY, straight from the lips of someone who has absolutely no reason whatsoever to spin, dissemble, or otherwise slant the facts in a way that would prevent "People" readers from getting the REAL STORY.

Kudos to "People" for having the guts to ferret out a source like Cruise's attorney and build a whole article around his objective insights. Here's a publication that recognizes that it's only through unfiltered proclamations from paid current employees in good standing of the celebrities themselves that we can get REAL STORIES of controversial figures.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to

The other day, I happened to trip over the October 5 edition of "People," and I accidentally read several pages, including a seemingly innocuous section of "Star Tracks" featuring a few photos of LeeAnn Rimes and Eddie Cibrian.

The smaller picture showed the couple boarding her tour bus. Simple enough, right? Stars are just like us--they board tour buses.

Well, no, there is something far more significant going on here. "People" is sending a message here, not just by what it says--more on this in a moment--but what it does NOT say. There is no reference to the messy circumstances that brought these two together--you know, the whole two marriages being broken up thing.

By avoiding any reference to that situation, when it's the first thing that jumps into anyone's mind when seeing a pic of the couple, "People" is signalling to us that it's time to move on. The mag is using its huge influence in the gossiposphere to loosen up on the two and bestow on them credibility as a "normal" couple.

Now, the bigger picture right next to it, with a topless Cibrian and a bold caption about his "BUFF BOD"? There's no larger symbolic meaning to that. "People" just wants us to know about his buff bod.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to

I apologize for not keeping up with "People" magazine lately, but what can I say? What with work commitments, family commitments, and being-lazy commitments, I've been busy, and sometimes it's just hard to find the 3 1/2 minutes needed to read a whole issue.

That said, I did look at the September 17 issue--not that I read it, you know, my wife just had it laying around--and I discovered that Nick Hornby had a new novel coming out soon. This is a big revelation to me. Hornby is one of my favorite authors, and this is news to me. So I should really be thankful for "People" magazine and not even mention any of the, shall we say, less useful bits in the issue.

BUT I feel I owe my faithful readers, so let me mention the "Body Watch" column on page 136. Tyra Banks, it seems, has lost 30 pounds, and we see a pic of her "new bod" alongside "her famous 'fat' photo" of 2006.

"People's" obssessive coverage of celebrities' weight always amuses me, but then, so does the spin celebrities themselves put on their own weight gains and losses. In this article, a close source claims that this was just Banks "wanting to get healthier."

"She didn't do it to lose weight. Tyra loves her body no matter what size she is--and thinks every woman should feel that way."

So in other words, Banks didn't lose weight to lose weight. Ahhhh, yeah, that makes sense.

News flash: If you're overweight, losing weight makes you healthier. Why parse words like this? I guess it's because Tyra Banks, as the article mentions, told everyone in 2007 to kiss her fat ass, and she doesn't want to be seen as admitting she wanted/needed to lose weight. Even though she clearly did. And even though she wants to be healthier.

I guess you can argue that the idea here is that Tyra went on a mad exercising spree just for her cardio health or whatever and just happened to lose 30 pounds as a result, but it all goes together. Why be so particular about it?

More importantly, why spend several paragraphs on a blog talking about it? Hey, did I mention that Nick Hornby has a new novel coming out?

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: Special "Guiding Light" tribute

In honor of the departing CBS soap "Guiding Light," axed after umpteen years, a special look at what Kim Zimmer, AKA Reva, referred to as one of her 5 favorite moments in all her years on the show. I don't watch the show, but some of the ladies in my life do, and I know enough to tell you that Reva has spent a LOT of years on the show. "People" lists the last of her 5 moments as "HER FINAL SCENE AS REVA." Zimmer explains:

60% of the fans will be happy, but 40% probably won't. It depends on who Reva rides off into the sunset with."

Publish Post

I'd wager if I surveyed the "Guiding Light" watchers in my life, 100% would almost be happy the show is going off the air simply because it means Reva will be taking a hike.

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: double feature

So it's not that I intend this to be a weekly feature, but I have fallen behind a bit in my mission of extracting the vital nuggets from "People," and I worry that some of you are disoriented without this information. So today I look at two issues--er, my wife looked at two issues, that is.

In the August 17, 2009, issue, "People" lured readers in with a touching cover story about the late Farrah Fawcett's friendship with Alana Stewart...but it won their hearts with an EXCLUSIVE look at "Justin Timberlake's Favorite Things."

For example, Justin loves "a really great Italian wine." He says he's "such a foodie," and "People" indicates this with a picture of that rare, exotic dish: chocolate chip cookies. He loves Cartier's cuff links, and, most illuminating of all, Justin says, "I actually like my own funk smell sometimes."

In the next week's issue, you might think the big story is the interview with Brad Pitt (about Angie! His Kids! His future! His thimble collection!), but I beg to differ. He does irritate right off the bat with this response to the first fan-submitted question, asking if he and Jolie will ever get married: "When everyone who wants to get married can legally do so, we will consider the same." What kind of a BS answer is that? If you support gay marriage, fine, but don't hide behind the issue to avoid saying you don't want to get married.

Nonsense like that explains why the pertinent Q&A in this issue is "5 Questions for...Marlon Wayans." First of all, Marlon Wayans is 37!!??

But here's the essential info from this piece. "People" had the GUTS to ask Wayans the first thing he does in the morning, and here's his reply:

"You know those soap operas where they wake up and they start kissing and making out? I don't do that! I have to brush my teeth, and then we can get busy!"