Oh, Reba. … I wish I didn’t have to do this to you, but:

You’ve created some seriously ugly shoes.

And it pains me to have to call you out on it, because I happen to love all things Reba. “Tremors.” “Does He Love You?” 33.5 million in album sales. The fact your second husband’s name is Narvel Blackstock. And that you picked a model that looks sorta like you to model your clothing line on your web site. (Click on thumbnail to bring up full-size photo in a new window.) … In fact, I just watched the rerun of your show tonight where Kelly Clarkson played a wannabe weather girl, and how can you not love a verite-style program in which a mom has named her children Cheyenne and Kiera? Just like moms all over Texas would have done with their daughters at the same time. If you had had another, younger, daughter, I fully would have expected her to be a Brittany — or, now, an Emma — that’s how on the suburban zeitgest your character is. Not glamorous, but relatable.

But.

I am very upset with you that not one of the debut models in your spring shoe line is named “Fancy.” You have a shoe called “Suzy.” How can there not be a shoe called Fancy? Fancy is a word that is begging to be something more than just the name of a girl who may have been born just poor white trash but, with the help of a fancy satin dancin’ gown slit up to her genitals, “charmed” a king, a congressman and an occasional aristocrat and now owns major real estate in the South. It should be the name of a shoe!

It should not, however, be the name of this particular shoe.

Because this shoe, rather presumptuously named Envy, is bad. And I understand that your offerings are supposed to be more comfortable than a pair of 5-inch stilettos, but these are like old-lady bad. I’m surprised there’s even a thong strap there, because how will they be able to wedge their support-hosed toes through there?

And lest you think I just picked the worst one … let’s examine some others. (Click on each thumbnail to see the picture in a full-size window.)

You’ll notice the rather unfortunate color palette. I expected sass from Reba, not grandma shoes. And some of them have 3-inch heels — the (shudder) mauve one at right is even 3.5 inches! — so it’s not a ground-clearance issue. And while I like the concept of an “antibacterial lining,” including that in the promotional materials really broadcasts that these shoes are … practical. And it’s OK for them to be comfortable — you just don’t necessarily need for them to look like that’s the only reason to buy them. I mean, even Naturalizer has stepped up its game to include this vixenish little black faux-patent number at left (but then again, it’s on sale, so it probably got lost among the legions of sensible sandals).

So, a recap: I love you. LOVE you. I love the fact that you have even included a “feedback” form on your Web site so people can tell you what they like “and how what we can improve what you will find in stores.” It’s like you know you’re just starting out! I love that.

But consider this my feedback form (because cutting and pasting thumbnails and HTML probably won’t go through your system): These shoes have got to go.

Agree, or disagree? I’ve created a poll below — click on your choice to vote. And if you also leave a comment, you’ll be entered to win a pair of new scents from DKNY Be Delicious — the limited-edition Charmingly Delicious scents in both green and red apple varieties, which came out last month. UPDATE: Congratulations to Michael, whose comment was chosen as the winner.

ammit

WHAT SAM WORE: 4/1/08 (in which I dressed in what appears to be a uniform)
The shirt: Short-sleeved jersey button-down by Mossimo (Target)
The pants: Cotton trousers by Quiksilver (Last Chance)
The shoes: Suede Puma Clydes (Last Chance)
The scent: Mentha body lotion by C.O. Bigelow (Bath & Body Works)

sammit

Posted in: Shoe Hot Or Not? |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.