Heartless Doll

How does it feel to be bested by Tina Fey, Laura Bush?

2009-01-06 15:09:39

By Sharon Steel

The publishing industry had a collective, "HAHA SUX TO BE U" chuckle this morning over the news that outgoing First Lady Laura Bush only received a paltry $1.6 million advance from Simon and Schuster for her memoir, which she pitched to several publishing houses in mid-November. Seven figures doesn't sound all that bad? Well, it kinda is, especially when you compare it to some other recent deals. Tina Fey was rumored to have been offered $6 million for her forthcoming book of comedic essays, and Sarah Silverman, following in Fey's nerd-hot bespectacled footsteps, reeled in a rather lucrative contract of her own. Not to mention Hillary Clinton, who scored $8 million for her bestseller Living History. In the popularity contest of wacky advances, Mrs. Bush is the lonely girl at the lunch table, twirling her hair and pretending her friends are about to show up.

Of course, the low offer could have something to do with her performance at her pitch meeting. The New Yorker reported this week that the reception, according to one publisher, was mixed:

"She was not forthcoming about anything that I would consider controversial," the publisher who met with her said. "We questioned her rigorously, but it was one-word answers. I considered it the worst, or the most frustrating, meeting of its sort that I've ever had." He added, "But she really couldn't have been nicer."

Clamming up on the dirt you plan to write about isn't usually the best way to get your editor breathless about representing you. But, from the likes of it, we wouldn't be surprised if Mrs. Bush simply realized she had no choice to play coy, considering bits and pieces of her life story may have been scooped by Curtis Sittenfeld last year.

[via New York Post]

Gwyneth Paltrow wants you to detox your bowels

2009-01-06 13:24:58

By Sharon Steel

Yesterday, we received our January GOOP.com e-newsletter. For those of who you haven't been keeping up with soft-launched online media ventures, this hilarious corner of the Internets is helmed by Gwyneth Paltrow, with the aim of helping us all "nourish the inner aspect." But this time, Mrs. Goop is being really, um, specific about the whole "inner" part. What better way to capture the hearts of your fans and subscribers than to wish them a Happy New Year with suggestions on how to increase the quality and quantity of your visits to the little girls' room? Suddenly, it's all a little too much:
]]> Continue reading "Gwyneth Paltrow wants you to detox your bowels " >

NBC saves you from Ann Coulter

2009-01-06 09:48:10

By Andrea Grimes

I'm sorry for leaving you off my Christmas list, NBC. I didn't realize how much you loved me. True, I was getting some signals from Keith Olbermann, but that dude is so totes a player, I didn't want to believe it. And then came proof of your affections: an Ann Coulter ban!

The Drudge Report had the story yesterday evening, and it's full of glory. Apparently Coulter's something of a newsy cocktease, agreeing to appear on shows and then backing out at the last minute. You'll have to forgive me for reformatting the awful Drudge font and grammar leniency into something close to readable:

The nation's top selling conservative author has been banned from appearing on NBC, insiders tell the Drudge Report. "We are just not going to have her on any more, it's over," a top network source explains. But a second top suit strongly denies there is any "Coulter ban." "Look for a re-invite as soon as Wednesday," said the news executive, who asked not to be named. NBC's Today show abruptly cut Ann Coulter from its planned Tuesday broadcast, claiming the schedule was overbooked.

Convenient, of course, that Drudge would make such a report when Coulter's pawning a new bound bunch of paper with words on it (really, "book" seems generous.) But I'll take less Coulter any way I can get it. And I ask you: what person in their right mind would book Coulter on a morning show in the first place?! It's hard enough to put pants on before 9 a.m. without the Devil Incarnate screeching into my living room, for chrissake.

10 Reasons We Should Not Ban Rachael Ray to Patagonia, Even Though She's Awful

2009-01-06 05:00:00

By Andrea Grimes

"Yum-O."

It is perhaps the most irritating descriptor to enter the modern vernacular since "That's hot." And so it's only fitting that the term's originator, Rachael Ray, is perhaps the most irritating television personality to enter the modern media landscape since Puck of Real World San Francisco fame. For anyone who's tried to settle into a nice Food Network evening full of Bobby Flay and Iron Chef and been rudely interrupted by the perky-ditzy squeal of Ms Ray, you'll understand when I say: Rachael is awful. And yet, she should not be banished to the ends of the earth. Oh, no. I believe Ms Ray has given us great gifts, and for these reasons, we shall allow her to remain among us.

10. She gives Oprah something to do.

The Queen of Talk (no, not you, Rachael) has her show on autopilot: interview celebrity, relate celebrity trials to own life, draw conclusions in form of adage for audience, give audience pricey gift. She could do it in her sleep. Having Rachael Ray as a protege gives Oprah something fun to do. Like owning a dog, but it's yippier.

9. She can bend time.

Ray became famous for her 30 Minute Meals schtick, wherein she makes a "yum-o" meal in a half hour, live on television. Anyone who's ever tried to do this at home with one of her 30 Minute Meals cookbooks knows that this is physically impossible unless one has an army of tiny sous-chefs prepping every ingredient. Rachael Ray is like the Dr. Who of the Food Network. Or she would be, if she were David Tennant and Billie Piper was her sous-chef and people with good taste watched her show.

]]> Continue reading "10 Reasons We Should Not Ban Rachael Ray to Patagonia, Even Though She's Awful" >

Chicks Aren't Funny: yes they are! NYT sez so!

2009-01-05 16:30:08

By Andrea Grimes

New York Times, I love you. I know I'm hating today, but I do. I buy you on weekends. I am shocked when I meet people who don't read you. But sometimes, you are a little too big for your britches. Like this weekend, when you declared the glass comedy ceiling all but broken in a profile of SNL's Kristen Wiig:

But over the last year -- when Ms. Fey and others may have finally stiletto-stomped the masculine surprise at the notion of a funny woman -- Ms. Wiig has emerged as a comic standout.

Until chick comedy nights are more than a marketing scheme for comedy clubs (why can't we just call them "Friday" or "Saturday?") and people stop telling girl comics that their "tits get in the way" (true story, ask me sometime) and people stop writing phrases like "stiletto-stomped" in otherwise respectable articles about women, the "masculine surprise" isn't going anywhere.

But hey, how about some actual good news? Last fall, SNL had its best quarter in eight years thanks in no small part, I'm guessing, to the Fey-Palin phenomenon. Sadly, there doesn't appear to be much hope for a Fey return, even if the Fake Gay News blog would like it to be so.

In defense of absinthe

2009-01-05 15:10:06

By Andrea Grimes

While the folks at the New York Times Style section are usually busy making up fake trends that are really just about their own anecdotal experience, they went one farther yesterday with an article about absinthe. This time, instead of a regular fake trend, it's a fake trend that sucks! According to writer Eric Konigsberg, absinthe, which was so recently in vogue, is now as passé as En Vogue. How does he know? Well, because he thinks it's lame!

" ... to follow the arc of this craze, like others that have come before (remember cigar bars?) is to see just how quickly something that was once illicit -- and acquired notoriety because of that very illicitness -- can lose its sheen of mystery and become, well, rather uncool ... If absinthe were a band, it would be Interpol, third-hand piffle masquerading as transgressive pop culture. If absinthe were sneakers, it would be a pair of laceless Chuck Taylors designed by John Varvatos for Converse. If it were facial hair, it would be the soul patch. If absinthe were a finish on kitchen and bath fixtures, it would be brushed nickel."

Thank god somebody finally broke the "after something is cool, it'll become uncool!" story. Nothing gets past this guy. Cool Eric goes on to liken absinthe lovers to people who dig Chuck Norris and RPG's. Cool Eric only likes cool things, which are not absinthe and RPG's, which are for nerds. Pour yourself a cold PBR, Eric, and sit yourself down. Commentary: I has it.

I'm taking it all a little harshly because I happen to absolutely love absinthe. And it has nothing to do with being naughty. Yes, absinthe is fun to drink, if you want to get all frou-frou with the sugar and the distilled water and pretending you're seeing a green fairy. But all of this business about sophistication and mystery, with which Eric Konigsberg's take on absinthe seems to be mainly concerned, seems a little silly to me. Absinthe, in its heyday, seems to have been a drug used similarly to the way folks smoke pot today. Makes you loopy, makes stupid things interesting, makes you feel like you're John Lennon even if you're a little closer to Nick Jonas. Chase it with some heroin, well, and you've got your night planned out. Konigsberg can't get past the uber-mystery PR push and evaluate the booze for what it is: fun.

Many folks who really dig absinthe aren't swilling it at bars, ordering it loud enough so that everyone in the room knows what a cool cat they are. Konigsberg's assertion that absinthe is now lame because lame people are drinking it has more to do with the crowd he visited than any real exploration of folks who love the drink. But then we wouldn't get to read a snarky NYT Style section article, would we? Those trends aren't going to identify themselves.

For most of us, drinking absinthe is not only about subversion--absinthe just doesn't taste good enough for that. It's about the glorious pot-like high (or so I've been told--I couldn't tell you what it's like to get high off pot, I'm a dork.) Three tequilas down your gullet, and you're looking at one hell of a sleepy drunk. Three absinthes down your gullet, and you're soaring and smiling.

Eric, you're welcome to come over for an absinthe cocktail any time. And I think that, instead of discovering that if you go to douchey places where douches drink absinthe you're simply more likely to find douches drinking absinthe, you'll discover a very tasty refreshment that doesn't care about cool.

Weddiquette: bringing your BFF as a "guest"

2009-01-05 12:13:16

By Andrea Grimes

I turned 25, and suddenly all my friends are getting married while I'm sitting around perfecting my Sidecar recipe and fighting the patriarchy. Ladies of a certain age and temperament, from fictional Bridget Joneses to real-life every last single gal I know, occasionally dread what the mailbox might bring: a wedding invitation for you and a "guest."

I mean, I'm flattered that they think I'm at least capable of attracting a "guest," but also kind of miffed, because "guest" means "date," doesn't it? I've thrown this question out there to the chattering world of Twitter and Facebook and gotten a variety of responses. I ask you, dear readers, If you "and guest" are invited to a wedding, does the "guest" necessarily have to be a person of potential romantic interest?

The assumption is, of course, yes. You bring dates to weddings, not friends. Even if I show up with a platonic guy friend, people are going to figure we're on a date. And if I show up with a girlfriend, advises a compadre of mine, "Just be ready to field questions about the nature of your relationship."

Methinks a revolution is in order: single folks, instead of searching out a warm body to accompany you for the evening, why not bring a good friend you're not interested in? That way, weddings can become fodder for new love connections, instead of couples parades. What think you, dear readers?

10 Signs You've Officially Become a Facebook Stalker

2009-01-05 05:00:48

Facebook stalking is a delicate art. Anyone who's stared a little too long and a little too closely at a friend's profile has thought to themselves, "Is this weird?" Even if you've got no moral dilemma with reading every intricate detail of someone's online life -- and lots of time on your hands to do it -- there's the issue of not letting on to the person in question just how obsessed you are.

Whether you're following a crush, an ex, or even the new crush of an ex (that bitch!), here are some tips for recognizing you've officially crossed over into Facebook stalker territory -- and from preventing the person you're stalking from figuring that out.

10. You know more about what someone did last night than they do.

Checking out a friend's party photos is an entirely legitimate, non-stalkerly Facebook activity. Checking out those photos the second they're posted, watching the person in question get progressively drunker, and then glaring at the girl in the low-cut shirt falling all over your stalker-ee: that's questionable.

9. You notice when someone's profile pic changes, and you're not even their friend.

Stalking someone you can't friend for social reasons -- your boyfriend's ex, whom you've never met, for example -- can prove challenging even for the most intrepid Facebook user. If that person keeps their profile private, sometimes you have to content yourself and your unhealthy obsession with staring at the tiny profile pic that comes up when you search for their name. Desperate? Yes, but stalkers can't be choosers.

]]> Continue reading "10 Signs You've Officially Become a Facebook Stalker" >

On tying knots in cherry stems and family reactions thereto

2008-12-31 12:22:19

By Bonnie Ruberg

Over at Jezebel today you can find detailed instructions on how to tie knots in cherry stems as a New Year's Eve party trick. This is one of those classic coy ways to grab attention from slightly drunk boys who can only barely wrap their minds around what your tongue must have been doing to achieve such a result. What's interesting to me though is the author's description of how she learned the trick, and her family's reaction:

Unfortunately for my still-probably-embarrassed mother, when does a 12-year-old have access to enough practice maraschino cherry stems but at a family function with an open bar. At least a dozen cherry stems, a massive sugar high and a bunch of snickering male relatives later, I knew how to do it.

I should admit, I'm also one of those girls who can tie knots in cherry stems. Unlike this fine lady though, I don't do it often, and my family doesn't find it embarrassing. Much to the contrary, my mother actually uses it as her party trick. When we're at family functions or social gatherings and someone has a cherry in their drink, she can be heard to proclaim, "Oh, Bonnie knows a great trick with a cherry stem. Go on, Bonnie, show them!" Luckily, if the crowd is old enough, it doesn't seem to occur to them that what I've been guilted into doing is somehow wildly inappropriate.

How about you, dolls? Any interesting party tricks?

Sex strike in Naples gives ladies power over fireworks

2008-12-31 11:35:27

By Bonnie Ruberg

Worried that your man may endanger himself -- and his limbs -- this New Year's Eve by setting off illegal fireworks? Well, the women of Naples, Italy are, but luckily they've come up with a solution: withhold sex from their husbands and boyfriends unless they swear to refrain from amateur explosions. According to the BBC, hundreds of Italian ladies are pledging to make their partners sleep on the sofa if that's what it takes to get the word out about firework safety. From the article:

Local authorities are backing the women and have sent out text messages urging the men to "make love, not explosions"... ''If a sex strike is what it takes in order to get the attention of our men, husbands, partners and sons, then we're ready for it," Mrs Staiano, 44 [a founder of the campaign] told Italy's Ansa news agency.

Does anyone else see the problem with that quote? While I'm all for women using their sexy powers for good -- heck, I'd probably be all for women using their sexy powers for evil -- it's a little disturbing that Ms. Staiano says the sex strike could grab the attention of "sons." You mean if their girlfriends joined in, right? Right? At least the movement has lofty inspiration:

The move was inspired by the ancient Greek play Lysistrata, in which the women of Athens refuse to have sex unless their men folk forge a truce with their rivals from Sparta. Doctor and local councillor Vincenzo Sorrentino, who has long campaigned against the illegal fireworks, said a sex ban was "an issue that men are particularly sensitive to''.

Well, I would think so, oh brilliant one. My question is, how long does the sex strike go on? Like, if your man lights illegal fireworks despite your anti-lovin' threats, do you hold out on him just through the New Year? Does the ban go through January? Or is it indefinite? It's not like he'll be able to prove his newfound dislike for explosives again until the next December 31st, and that's a long time to sleep on the sofa.