Thursday, July 24, 2008

skills to pay the bills

I'm in the running to become a "Rafter," or correspondent, for a new "cutting-edge" cultural blog/website. They say I'll be poised for fame and cash. I don't know about that, but I'll take what I can get.

Just to give you an idea of the kind of cheeze I'm getting myself into, here is part of the introduction from the website:

Soon, a hot new media channel will be launched, and people everywhere are lining up for the chance to become our Rafter correspondents. So check it out, world. You’ll be amused, enlightened, irritated, maybe even shocked – but once we make our final selections, you’ll never be bored. This is an open audition, so be sure to vote and leave comments.

We’re looking for individuals on the cultural cutting edge to become our correspondents. Writers and photojournalists, specifically. We’re calling them Rafters. If you have a strong voice, excellent skills and a unique point of view, then you could be a Rafter. But if you’re middle-of-the-road, mainstream, milktoast, you’re not for us.

Another point. We’re not after fluff here. You need to know something. Whether it’s entertainment, finance, fitness, law, or the tantalizing details on that tiny new restaurant around the corner, you’re the expert. Show us. Intrigue us. Keep us coming back for more.

The best in the industry think this will be huge. Which means the correspondents we select will be poised for fame and cash. So dive in headfirst. If you’re a true Rafter, you can spot a good opportunity when you see one.

They will be choosing around 200 "Official Rafters" and of these, the most popular (i.e. the ones whose pages get the most views) will, in theory, recieve compensation. I could use a dollar or two, but realistically, I think this venture will be much better-suited for exposure than fortune. Either way, if you'd like to help me out, you can visit my page at the Rafter Jump On site and click the "thumbs up" button. I'll need lots and lots of votes in order to make it to "Official Rafter" status. Thanks, guys!

Here's the link:



In related news, I got my new issue of WIRED today, which includes an article entitled "Get Internet Famous! (Even If You're Nobody)."
I will have this article memorized by the end of the day.


In case the writing thing doesn't work out, I've applied for a job as a caregiver with these people. Save the Chimps has taken in almost 300 chimpanzees that were rescued from research laboratories, the entertainment and pet trade, or were part of the recently defunct U.S. Air Force "Chimpanaut" space program. Save the Chimps runs the world's largest chimpanzee refuge, right here in Fort Pierce, Florida. Who knew?


jesse said...

Did you write that Sex and the City post just for Rafter? The thing that bugs me about that show/movie is that many people seem to legitimately believe it's empowering to women, because the characters have jobs, love sex and aren't afraid to go out and get it.

Of course, their ultimate goal is to land a man who can build them a dream closet but hey, girls will be girls.

Oh yeah, you're obviously superior to the girly archetype. duh.

V said...

Both the pieces on Rafter are shortened versions of previous Dinghy posts.

Look, if somebody finds Sex in the City "empowering," then they are clearly misguided. It's not a political or social statement; it's entertainment. It's a sitcom, for chrissake. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. Simple entertainment = good.

The funniest comment I have ever heard about Sex in the City came from Chuck Klosterman; he said he tried watching it to see what all the hype was about, but all he saw was four peculiar-looking women talking like gay men.

jesse said...

oh c'mon now, things aren't as simple as that. "This is a comedy, this is serious political commentary, this is snuff." Many things have transcended their simple labels to be something bigger. How about MASH or The Simpsons, two comedies that permanently left a dent on American culture (beyond the weekly chuckles)?

Like it or not, Sex and the City is bigger than a comedy. It showed a slice of female urban culture that hadn't gotten a lot of airtime before. As such, people say it is empowering, groundbreaking, etc. Which is crap.

One example of an article that is proud as punch of SatC.

V said...

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Is Sex and the City a complex and valuable cultural phenomenon? Maybe. Has it transcended its simple labels to become something bigger? I don't know; the show remained exactly what it always was, which is: everything women want in a television show.

It's the perfect mix of fantasy and reality. When you put aside the silliness and get down to the bare bones of the conversations those women were having, it was incredibly realistic. Realistic television had been done before, as had fantasies involving clothing, men and living a fun and lavish lifestyle in an exciting city. But the thing that made Sex and the City special was that it used very flawed characters, and realistic situations and subject matter, to bring depth and credibility to the fanciful aspects of the show. Women could actually identify with these characters, which both made the elements of fantasy seem that much more accessable, and encouraged viewers to become emotionally attached to the women on-screen.

I certainly did not mean to give the impression that I would discount the impact of the show. Sex and the City was (and still is) huge, and it's going to remain a lasting part of our culture. But aside from becoming an enormous pop-culture phenomenon in itself, has it really changed anything in a fundamental way? No -- but it has changed the way we watch T.V., which is a big deal in these parts. The same could be said of The Simpsons.

Sure, we've picked up some catchphrases. Cosmos had a few good years, Manolo Blahnik sold some more shoes, and women everywhere are still looking for their "Mr. Big." Empowering? Definitely not.

I think we agree on that, at least.

In any case, I didn't write the story about watching the movie in order to make some insightful social commentary on the show itself; it had much more to do with my lifelong feelings of awkwardness at not "fitting in" with what I percieve to be the feminine norm. And of course, as in most of the anecdotes I post here at the Dinghy, I have greatly exaggerated almost every aspect of the story (including my real or imagined neuroses) for the sake of humor and/or plot.