Saturday, December 24, 2005

Bored Games

Hi there. Ozzie and Harriet took off for the holidays. I suppose I should say Christmas since that is the holiday in question. But they went to England where holiday also means vacation and they are on vacation. I don't know if Ozzie celebrates Christmas, cuz I don't think he celebrates anything. He's a big ol' grump butt. Of course, Ozzie doesn't take vacations either. He's always working. Well, sometimes he is helping us blog. I'm not sure whether that counts as work for him. He treats it like a chore, so it might. I dunno. Anywho, feel free to use Christmas and holiday interchangeably. You will keep people guessing that way.

So the bears are home alone. Given the chaos that erupted last time we were left alone, we decided to keep things low key this time. So we're just relaxin'. Nothing special. Talkin'. Nappin'. ... Kinda boring when it comes down to it.

Buffy decided to get things going and started agitating for a game. She's kind of our social coordinator. Actually, I don't know if that is strictly true. She doesn't do a whole lot of coordinating. Really, she is more of a dynamo. She just gets everyone moving. Not in the same direction, mind you, but doing something. There was some trouble was picking a game. Everyone wanted Pudgie to play, but Pudgie is a mite opinionated about the games a bear should play. We all have our favorite games, but Pudge cared more than anyone else, so the good Professor more or less dictated the terms. Here were the ground rules:

1) The game had to involve more than two people since there are so many of us;
2) The game had to involve some degree of skill;
3) The game couldn't involve too much action, since we were all feeling a little lethargic;
4) The game should not involve cards, since they are difficult to hold;
5) The game should not involve a lot of small pieces that needed to moved, since they get stuck in the fur.

Somehow, this seemed to lead us to select Trivial Pursuit. I don't know how this came to pass. For starters, Trivial Pursuit has cards. It also has pieces. Moreover, Professor Pudge Bear does NOT like to play Trivial Pursuit. In fact, Trivial Pursuit would seem to be the worst possible game, based on the criteria above. However, Trivial Pursuit was open and right next to the bed. Reminds me of one of my rules of paw, "when in doubt, bet on the status quo."

So Pudgie starts complaining about how Trivial Pursuit is really a game of chance and involves no real skill and is an affront to intellectuals everywhere. At this point, the game was on the bed, so he wasn't going to win this argument. He then says that he won't play if Platy plays. You see, Platy whipped Pudgie pretty good the last time we played Trivial Pursuit and Pudgie is still sore about it. Normally, we would ignore Pudgie's demand and let Platy play because we're an inclusive bunch. But since we couldn't find Platy (he went missing again), we decided to let Pudgie have his way. I don't know why he is feeling so ornary. I think he's upset that he isn't making much progress on his book. Too busy helping Ozzie with papers.

Bored in the Pursuit of Trivia

So we pursued trivia. I suppose it was okay. Buffy got most of the entertainment questions right. I nailed pretty much all the leisure questions. Pudgie did okay on the geography, history, and science. But when he missed one, oooh did he start to sputtering and saying it wasn't a real history question and who cares what year the first brassiere was manufactured. And Wagsy? Well, Wagsy enjoyed rolling again and again. He didn't answer many questions correctly, but he probably did more rolling than any of us. All in all, it was okay. Nothing to write home about, which makes me wonder why I am blogging about it now.

The Stomach of Luxury

After all the pursuiing, I decided that it was time to take a serious nap. No cat naps for me. I was going for an all out, belly stretching, toe wriggling, soft breeze blowing, deep sleep having power nap. Moose and Squawky joined me. I figured why not? My belly is soft and just sitting there, other people might as well enjoy it.

It's been a busy year for the bears. I think we deserve a little time off for relaxing. Here's to hoping that you get the rest you need to tackle 2006.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Giblets Resonds

Um ... hello! This will be a quick post because ... um ... well ... I'd rather nap that post right now. I don't know why, but I am feeling a little sleepy. Maybe it is Winter Solstice. Or maybe it is because the sheets are clean. Whatever the reason, I would rather spend my time dreaming of satelite television than type right now. I know it isn't very nice of me, but ... um ... deal.

Was that right, Buffy? Deal? Blowing people off is kinda new to me? ... It is, right?! Oooh, score one for the Wags dog! I'm in the house! ... What's that, Buffy? ... Oh, I see. ... No, that's okay. I probably was pushing it a bit far. I'll try to be careful with my slang.

Um ... where was I? Oh, yeah, yea, I was going to quickly post. You might remember Duck's angry post about Giblet calling ducks a failure. Oooh, he was verrry angry. I don't think I had ever seen Duck so angry. So I sent Giblets this email ...

On 12/4/05, Wagsy Dog wrote:

Um ... hello! How are you, Mr. Giblets? Um ... I don't know how to say this nicely, but ... um ... one of your recent posts ruffled some feathers in our household. You see a duck and a moose are good friends of mine. Yeah. And they ... um ... were kind of upset that you described their species about as "failures." Duck took it very hard since you were one of his favorite bloggers. Duck has aspirations for world domination, too, you see? Um ... it's kind of like being told by Michael Jordan that you'll never amount to more than a door stop. Oooh, that wouldn't be very pleasant.

Duck expressed his outrage in a post, but he's still fuming. Yeah, yeah. Normally posting is cathartic for him, but I think he really wants an apology. Um ... looking over your posts, I don't think you're too likely to apologize, because ... um ... well ... um ... you seem a little belligerent. But I thought I'd write and let you know how upset we are with you, Mr. Giblets. I'm sure there are other ducks that are mad at you, but --

What's that moose? ... Yes, yes, Moose is mad at you, too. Um ... we're all a little mad at you right now, but I suspect that it will go away quickly. That's the problem with having stuffin' for brains. It's hard to hold grudges.

Sincerely,

Wagsy (on behalf of Duck ... and Moose)


I figured writing a nice letter was the professional way to deal with the matter. I didn't really expect a reply, because ... well Fafblog is kinda busy and ... um ... Giblets doesn't seem like the type of person who cares much about the feelings of others. But he did. Giblets did respond. He didn't exactly apologize, but he at least cared enough to send a response ...

On 12/20/05 Giblets replied:

Oh yes so you know ducks and meeses do you? Well, some of Giblets's best friends are ducks and mooses, like the wise Judge Duck or the Nobel-prize winning Doctor Gustavus Moose. Failures all! Giblets's standard for success is as follows:

-Giblets: success
-Not-Giblets: failure!

All around him Giblets is surrounded by failures. Giblets does not hold it against them, which is one of the great keys to Giblets's success (he is quite a magnanimous Giblets).

P.S. Giblets apologizes for the lateness of this reply, Giblets has been sick. Sick with success!


Um ... as I said, he doesn't care much about other people's feelings. But at least he explained that it isn't personal. I suppose Giblets did call everyone a failure. Well, except penicillin. I guess penicillin should be flattered to be consider a "a moderate disappointment." Um ... maybe I shouldn't write to such mean people. He might call me names.

I'm not sure if I should show this letter to Duck. It might just rile him up again.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Goodbye to Pi

Um ... hello. Or should I say goodbye? Oooh, it was so sad. Today we mailed off Pi. We were all very sad. Pi had become a part of the family. Um ... to be perfectly honest, I think that means he stuck around too long. Harriet has a way of adopting bears who hang around for a while and Pi was awfully cute. Ozzie had to be very firm that Pi has a young and slobber-y child waiting for him. Training new bears is really important, but we have to do it faster. Um ... actually, come to think of it, there wasn't a whole lot of training that happened since June. I think Pi stuck around because Ozzie was too lazy to mail him quickly. He really shouldn't have put Harriet through the pain. Or the rest of us. It was really, really sad.

Goodbye Pi

Pi was a little disappointed in his travel accomodations. Squawky had raised his expectations a little too high. We had to explain that most bears arrive in boxes. It was a very nice box, though. Very clean and sturdy and not too squishy. Ozzie ensured us that he put tracking on the box so we can make sure Pi gets to Washington safely.

Um ... I think Pi was excited and a little scared to go. Meeting your person is such a big moment in a bear's life. Um ... it might even be THE moment. Ooh, I hope the little boy realizes how special Pi is.

Oddly enough, I think Pudgie might have been the saddest to see Pi go. Pudgie is a little grumpy and ... um ... demands a lot from his companions, but he seemed to really bond with Pi. It was really sweet. Pudgie can be very nice and helpful and he is very protective of Harriet, but Pi brought out the tender side of Pudgie. It was really sweet.

Teacher and student

Good luck, Pi. I'm sure your person will love you ... um ... almost as much as we do. We'll miss you.

Oooh, I told you it was sad!

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Bear Essentialism

Language often poses hurdles to understanding. Quine was correct when he noted that linguistic and mental meaning are partly constructed by practices of interpreting and translating. To paraphrase the trite question from epistemology 102, how do we know that two people understand the same concept when they hear the word "teddy bear?"

Long time readers of this blog might have noticed a certain terminological infelicity with regards to the term "teddy bear." Harriet's usage has always been broad and catholic encompassing bears as well as ardvarks, armadillos, dogs, ducks, eagles, lobsters, moose, owls, pigs, possums, rabbits, turtles, and zebras. It is fair to say that Harriet applies the term "teddy bear" (or even "bear") to any and all furry or fuzzy animals. In contrast, some utilize "teddy bear" solely in reference to animals strictly ursine in nature. The broader spectrum of the kingdom falls under the category "stuffed animal" or "plush toys." Such differences are of no consequence and I mention them merely to dispose of a potential hurdle to the focus of our inquiry.

What constitutes a teddy bear? At root, what are the essential elements of teddy bear-dom? Can we differentiate between bear and non-bear with any degree of reliability? I have been pondering this question since two new creatures have entered our household.

Bear or not bear?

On the left is a yeast. On the right, a German philosopher. More specifically, Saccharomyces and Friedrich Nietzsche have been adopted by our circle of bears. Both new additions have their charms to be sure, but are they "teddy bears" in the proper sense of the word?

Let us begin with the most obvious trait of teddy bears: teddy bears exhibit no biological processes. This statement is unequivocably true. Metabolizing creatures are not teddy bears, stuffed animals, or plush toys. Unfortunately, this criteria does little to differentiate teddy bears from all the toys that may be purchased from stores.

One criteria one might use for categorization is the presence of a furry or fuzzy exterior. Both Saccharomyces and Nietzsche fall into the bear category on this dimension. But surely such a category can be no more than a necessary condition and not sufficient. For if furriness were a sufficient condition, then blankets and coats would be teddy bears and this would stretch the word to be void of all meaning. In point of fact, I am sceptical of furriness as a even a necessary condition, for the owls are not furry and they are bears beloved by Harriet.

The reason blankets fall short of being teddy bears is not because they fail to be comforting, but because blankets possess no differentiated limbs or facial features. Under this rubric, the yeast falls short of teddy bear, while the philosopher garners a clear pass. However, dolls are not teddy bears and they have well defined limbs and facial features. Thus, differentiation cannot be a sufficient condition. Moreover, many older bears have facial features that have been worn away over time or perhaps even missing limbs. Thus, there may be exceptions to the generalization that differentiated parts are part and parcel of being a teddy bear.

Perhaps one can gain mileage from shifting the focus from "teddy bear" to "stuffed animal." Yeast belong to the kingdom Fungi rather than Animalia. In contrast, the German Philosopher is human and therefore a member of the animal kingdom. On the other hand, humans are fully rational creatures and not generally considered animals per se. Mammals, yes, but animal seems to fit only the most uncultured, immoral, and rude members of society. If being commonly considered a member of the animal kingdom is a prerequisite for being a teddy bear, both Saccharomyces and Friedrich Nietzsche present dubious cases.

Perhaps the telos of the object in question will offer guidance. Teddy bears are made to be hugged and loved. There is not another purpose for which they might be manufactured. Along this dimension, both the yeast and the philosopher satisfy the condition. I cannot think of an alternative use to which either of these creatures could be put towards with any degree of efficiency (though I strongly suspect that the poor yeast will be used as a stand-in for a shuttlecock at some point in time). Although I strongly suspect that both the yeast and the philosopher were intended to serve as curiosities or conversation pieces. As such, they would not be consider "teddy bears."

On the other hand, it may be possible for plush toys to overcome their telos and transform into a teddy bear. An example can be found in our family since one member was designed to serve as the covering for a golf club. It is an extremely sensitive topic, so I do not bring up the matter lightly. Lobby is a treasured member of our community and we would all consider him a teddy bear in good faith and standing. Harriet adores him and vice-versa.

And perhaps this insight leads to the key concept for defining "teddy bear." A teddy bear may be defined by the "plush toy's" relationship with a person. Once the toy is loved and has developed a personality, it has become a teddy bear. Prior to the bond, the toy is merely that ... a toy. The transformative nature of this bond was explored thoroughly in The Velveteen Rabbit. While I have problems with the end moral of The Velveteen Rabbit (see my comment at the end of my post on Heaven and Teddy Bears), I readily acknowledge that it captures an essential aspect of the human/bear relationship. Indeed, personality is the distinguishing characteristic between bears and toys.

Thus, it remains to be seen whether Saccharomyces and Friedrich Nietzsche rise to the level of bear-dom.

Monday, December 12, 2005

My Publicist So Dropped the Ball

Okay, so like I am a really forgiving person. You know, some times I want to get all mad and stuff and flip my lid, but most of the time I just take a break, grab a little O2 and come back all relaxed and ready to move on. But like right now, I'm still a little worked up and that is after I spent a whole day sun bathing with Amelia to unwind.

It's my publicist, ya know? I just don't think he is advancing my career the way he needs to right now. This weekend there was an article on CafePress in the NYT and all the weirdos who maintain virtual storefronts, but like there was no mention of my store. Come on, a fame seeking aardvark who is totally hot is *at least* as important as a bacon ribbon or some lame reference to Napoleaon Dynamite. A publicist with half an ounce of gumption would have totally landed me a sentence in the article, or at least a clause, or even crammed me between two commas. Like I don't care. I just feel totally dissed being excluded. Like I find the NYT boring (I mean come on, it calls itself the "Gray Lady"), but lots of people with kids read it. Surely someone would have said, "You know, I would look totally awesome in a baby doll t-shirt that said 'Aardvark Fabulous'." And you know what, that person would be 100% right.

And did you know that I released a movie this weekend? I bet not. You know why? Because no one in the entire country knew my movie was released. There was no buzz, much less pop, hum, or even a murmur. Hello! You need to reach the public as a publicist! I'm so totally miffed that not even chocolate covered ants can cheer me up. We even had hot posters made up for the movie:

Incredi-bears movie poster

Oh my god, doesn't that totally drag you in? The font says horror movie, but the teddy bears say huggable. "Solving laundry emergencies" sounds like it could be an adventure flick or maybe even an old-fashioned who-dun-it, but the boys in the basket scream road trip. I have to admit that I think the movie wasn't destined to be a blockbuster. I mean, teddy bears just aren't very action oriented and a movie where fabric softener is a plot lynchpin is about as gripping as handshakes at a carpel tunnel support group. But I figured people would least show up the first weekend, right? 'til they heard from their friends that the movie was a yawner? Wrong-o! Ben Affleck's last ten dozen lame movies have all flopped, but at least a handful of people showed up on opening weekend. What happened to mine?

Okay, so it was a bad weekend. I mean opening opposite The Chronicles of Narnia and the week before King Kong was like a really dumb idea. Like I mean a REALLY dumb idea. Guess whose idea it was. Like YEAH! Yet another example of my publicist dropping the ball ... like right on my head this time. I'm so embarassed. I mean, NO ONE showed up at my movie. Literally, not one ticket was sold. Okay, so maybe some bored slackers snuck in or something, but that doesn't count.

And have you read my autobiography? Say what? Like why not? Oh, I DON'T HAVE AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY! Like what's up with that? Even Nicole Richie has an autobiography. Would America rather read the totally inspiring story of a cute young aardvark's quest for fame and fortune, or would they rather listen to the bogus whining of a rich parasite complaining about being rich and famous and spats with her completely talentless best friend. Okay, even I would rather read the second book, but this is America -- in the internet age -- where every wannabe starlet gets a vanity press autobiography. This aardvark demands on demand publishing at the very minimum!

Bottom-line, I'm thinking of getting a new publicist. I feel kind of bad about it, but I think it might be necessary. Oh my god, I wouldn't be here without my publicist. He took all those early photos and came up with the idea of publicly pursuing Brad Pitt (I had only be privately pining for him) and even got me onto the cover of US Quarterly. That was all so cool and so sweet. But he might have taken me about as far as he can. Like I hate to say this, but I think I might have out grown my publicist.

Now I just need to figure out my next step.

Amelia, grab my thinking loofah! I'm gonna take a hot shower.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Hundred Aker Wood and Basketball

Hi there. Ever notice how some people have a good idea, but never quite follow it all the way through or know how to pull it off? I usually see this happen in comedies. The writer and the director create these highly entertaining characters that are doomed to fail in hilarious fashion or such irredeemable jerks that you just KNOW they will be unhappy by the end of the movie. In fact, the whole point of the character and setting is that they won't get the girl and live happily ever after. And yet, every time, the producers sell out and we get some sappy and totally unbelievable happy ending with a wedding. We sat through an hour of a good dark comedy to watch the creators betray their vision and patch together some "Hollywood ending." That type of half-heartedness just drives me up the wall. When I do something, I make sure to do it right. Ain't no half steppin' with me. When I'm cuddling, I cuddle. And when I'm watching TV, well, I'm cuddling, too. What can I say, I like cuddling?

Anywho, Ozzie sent me an article on the NBA where the author took the time to imagine a draft of the characters in Winnie the Pooh. Right off the bat, I'm on board. I can't think of better comedy fodder than bringing together two disparate and totally unrelated sets of things (editor: Kinda like teddy bears and blogging?) Quiet, you. I don't need any of your cheap one-liners in this post. (Editor: Okay, suit yourself.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, unlike things and entertainment. When I think of the menagerie imagined by A.A. Milne, I do NOT think basketball. I might think food or flood insurance or maybe even exploration, but basketball wouldn't even make the top 100 concepts. Basketball is to the Hundred Aker Wood as ... huh ... this is a tough one. Logging is to New York City? I dunno. I think it needs to be a sport. The Lumberjack Olympics is to New York City? I dunno, cuz I don't see Pooh or Piglet chopping down any trees and if they did, well, then there wouldn't be a Hundred Aker Wood, now would there? What sport do those guys play? Pooh sticks? I betcha kids play Pooh Sticks in the Bronx. Kinda universal. That is the whole point of the story, isn't it? Heffalump hunting? Hmmm. The point is, basketball and Christopher Robin's beloved plush family are not a natural fit.

And I think a mock draft of these characters is a great way to think about it. But the author just didn't think it out enough. Maybe it because he isn't a teddy bear. Here's how Andrew Lawrence ranked the crew:


RankCharacter Goofball's Analysis
#7PigletYeah, Piglet would probably be the worst basketball player. No heart. Smaller than the ball. Annoying, so teammates would dump him in the laundry basket. Maybe I'm selling him short, but Piglet doesn't seem to have the drive and courage of Mugsy -- only his stature. And Scott Skiles was pretty pink, but he was a gritty player. Let's face it, you can't be both short and soft in the NBA.
#6Eeyore Excuse me? Eeyore would be awesome. First off, he's the only four legged animal and stubborn as all get out, so he would be immovable down on the blocks. And he's also the only character with the demonstrated ability to put the ball in the hole. Remember the birthday story with putting the rag in the useful pot? And Eeyore has a mean streak. Guy goes out of his way to embarass people. For cryin' out loud, he eats thistles!! How many championships do you think Charles Barkley would have won if he ate thistles instead of Big Macs? I see Eeyore being like Arvydas Sabonis.
#5OwlDude argues that Owl has a high basketball IQ. Did he miss the fact that Owl is always wrong? Owl thinks he is right and the rest of the characters believe him, but there is no substance there. Owl might be a fan favorite and have a unique fashion sense (tell me you couldn't see animal tails serving as doorbells on MTV Cribs), but he'll lead the team astray. Owl's got wings, so he probably has rise. I could see Owl being like Dominque -- all flash, but no substance.
#4RabbitNow here's a tough one. Rabbit is super organized and takes charge. And Rabbits can run like the dickens. But Rabbit is also kind of a jerk. Remember when he really got up in Tigger's grill and made him feel lower than low? Rabbit had a point, but that isn't the way to inspire the troops. In a lot of ways, Rabbit is like Larry Brown, but Larry isn't really known as a player. Maybe someone like Scottie Pippen, great player and acts like a leader, but you always guess that his teammates would like to see him traded.
#3RooClassic example of someone drafting based on potential more than accomplishment. Sure, the kid will be able to jump, but he's smaller than Piglet now. The best thing you can say about Roo is that he has an infectious enthusiasm that makes teammates want to play harder. But I don't see why you'd pick Roo when Kanga is still on the board. I mean she's older, fully developed, and already won honors. Why take a chance on Roo when you can get the seasoned pro ready to contribute immediately? You have no idea whether Roo will turn into Kobe Bryant or Korleone Young. The kid seems nice and hard working, though. Okay, so I'd draft him high, but I'd take Kanga first.
#2PoohNow here is where the train goes off the tracks. Excuse me? We're talking about a bear that fell into his own trap and got his head stuck in a pot of honey. Sure he's nice and talented and has a soft touch, but you just know he's going to eat himself out of the league ala Oliver Miller or Stanley Roberts.
#1TiggerDead on right here. His feet are made of rubber, his tail is made of springs, and there is only one of him. Yeah, his leaping ability sometimes gets him in trouble. You'd like Tigger to know what he was going to do with the ball before leaving his feet, but he jumps so high it almost doesn't matter. And with that bouncy, accesible personality, you just know that marketers will love him and the turnstiles will keep clicking. I think Darryl Dawkins might be Tigger's closest parallel. A little rim rattling, honey pot shattering, Rabbit hole stuffin' slam dunkin' from Chocolate Thunder comin' atchya, baby!


Sorry, I got a little carried away there. Let's face it, there ain't a lot of talent in the Hundred Aker Wood, which makes the exclusion of Kanga all the more inexplicable. I'm sure Christopher Robin would be better than the animals -- having thumbs opposable or otherwise has to help. But Chris is human and there is no fun in that. Contrariwise, the kid is British, so you just know he is going to be bad at basketball. When your nation's best players are Michael Olowokandi and John Amaechi, you better turn your attention to other sports like soccer. Or invent games like cricket and hope your colonies don't beat you too badly. Maybe Luol Deng will develop into a nice player, but doesn't Sudan need a hero more than Great Britain? And what sort of insecure country names itself "Great?" It's like putting the world "People" or "Democratic" in your name. If you need to advertise it so badly, then precisely the opposite is probably true. Maybe I shouldn't say anything more, seeing as Harriet is sorta from England (which is a perfectly fine name, but GREAT Britain?!).

But if I were drafting, I'd rank the players as follows:
1) Tigger
2) Kanga
3) Eeyore
4) Roo
5) Rabbit
6) Owl
7) Pooh
8) Piglet

Not much of a talent pool, huh? Maybe Four Square would be a better game for the good folks at Pooh Corner. Or marbles. I could see them playing marbles.

Dang it! This post didn't quite work. (Editor: Perhaps it would have benefited from my observations.) I don't want to hear anything from you.

Well, that's all from the Gooball. Still spectating and speculating in The Bend.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Moral Indignation

QUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACK
QUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACK
QUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACK
QUACKQUACKQUACKQUACKQUACK!

[Editor: Slow down, Duck. No one can understand you if you don't take a minute to breathe.]

Quackquackquackquack.

[Editor: Duck? Duck, take a deep breath. ... Count to ten ... Now what were you saying?]

Quack quack quack quACK quACK! Quack QUAck quackquack.

[Editor: I agree. You can't judge a species by the actions of a couple individuals. Which article has you so worked up?]

Quack quack quack quack. Quack quack QUACK quack QUACK.

[Editor: I see what you mean. Being called a failure by one of your favorite websites would make me upset too. It doesn't surprise me that you have an affinity for Giblets.]

Quack quackquack QuAck QUAck, quack quack QUAck quack quack quack.

[Editor: I think you're correct that Giblets didn't bother to interview any ducks. And, yes, for a website known for its hardhitting interviews, it IS disappointing.]

Moose: Moose!

Quack, quack quack quack.

[Editor: Yes, I would also be surprised if Giblets interviewed any moose either. I wouldn't take it too personally guys. Moose and ducks were also lumped with Copenhagen and penicillin. Both of those things are pretty cool.]

Quack quack quack QUAck quACK QUACK! quackquackquack.

Moose: Moose!

[Editor: Not a bad idea, Duck. Not a bad idea.]

Saturday, December 03, 2005

So Harshly Denied

So like this website with a kinda offensive name has everyday people review movies. I totally missed the inappropriate name. The website I went to was efilmcritic.com, which is like a perfectly fine name and I wasn't doing anything wrong. I saw that it was affiliated with HBS, but the meaning was over my head. Or maybe it was beneath me. Whatever. The point is that I didn't know there was anything misogynistic. I mean, like I thought "HBS" stood for "Harvard Business School" which isn't my cup of mocha latte, but it completely the level of high end brand name that I want to associate myself with. Hello! All it said was part of the "HBS network".

Whatever. Like the point is that they are conducting this awesome contest for new reviewers. And I was like all over it cuz I review movies and they get thousands and thousands of eyez every day, so like it would really raise my on-line profile. And like submitting an entry would be like a slurping ants in a sweets shop since I am totally experienced and have an awesome portfolio of movie reviews. So I needed to provide one positive and one negative review. I decided to go for my review of Ocean's Eleven because like I understand that movie better than anyone else on the planet. I mean a lot of people just don't evaluate it on the right criteria (a reminder to the girlz out there without a pulse ... George and Brad and Andy look *sizzling* hot). And then I thought my review of Ocean's Twelve might work for the negative review since the movie blew chunks. Oh my god was it bad. And like reviewing both movies would give the reader a sense of completeness. And it would let the critic judge dude know that I don't like a movie just because it has Brad or George in it. I mean, I have really high standards and I wanted to show that off. So I liked I pressed "Submit" and waited for the good news.

Like here is what they sent back:

Hi from HBS Entertainment,

Recently you submitted an application to become a reviewer at eFilmCritic/HollywoodBitchslap. We regret to inform you that your application has been rejected. Our system is geared toward only letting in the finest applicants, based on the opinions of our submissions panel. To help you improve any future submission, however, we have included their comments below.

We don't really go for reviewers who write "in character." We like honest, real voices.

Like, not a chance.


Please note that if you do choose to reapply, you must use the form on
the webpage again, as we cannot accept any submissions via email.

Thanks for your interest in our site!

HBS Submission Team
submissions@hollywoodbitchslap.com


That is so harsh. I guess I'm glad that they read the reviews and everything, but I can't tell if they're using "like" to mock me or compliment me. But what really yanks my tail is that they are questioning my sincerity. What do they mean by "in character?" As if. Like I'm totally on the level. I'm the same aardvark I've always been. My semi-C-list-celebrity status has absolutely not gotten to my head. Like I'm totally keeping it real. To like reject my application that is fine, but to question my character is just flat out rude.

Whatever. I'll move on. I didn't think I'd land the gig in the first place, but I didn't think I would be so harshly dissed. Their loss.