Twitter Logo
Rex Sorgatz

Trying really fucking hard to not be part of the problem.

jul 14
2008

Julia Is Everywhere Day

Today Julia took over the internet. Of course, this launched (Radar's take is the best). And she has a debate in Page Six with Sklar about defending your online reputation. And more than any of those things, the West Coast will finally (perhaps) stop saying "who?" every time her name is mentioned -- yep, she landed on the cover of Wired. Let the snark commence... UPDATE: Wired article.

25 comments

Also noted: it was rumored that she might get the cover, but my editors at Wired completely tricked me on this one -- I didn't think she'd get it.

posted by Rex at 4:33 PM on July 14, 2008

I'm sorry but I don't "get" Nonsociety. Its just some videos and the posts from their tumblrs....right? What am I missing? This got funding for...what?

posted by Jake at 4:42 PM on July 14, 2008

Honestly, I have no idea. I thought it would come outta the gates stronger.

And one more thing: I was talking to Matt Haughey at ROFLcon a couple months ago. He asked me "Who is this Julia person you keep mentioning on Fimoc?" I thought he was joking, so I just said "Haha." And then he said, "No I'm serious. Who is she?"

That perspective is why I assumed she'd never be a Wired cover girl.

posted by Rex at 4:45 PM on July 14, 2008

The name is aggravating me. It sounds like it should be a pun, but it's not! (is it?)

Also, they totes plagarized your use of the comma yo, yo.

posted by katiebakes at 5:03 PM on July 14, 2008

Definitely should have come out stronger, or perhaps a little more clear with their intent?

Actually, now that I think about it, they do have a blurb about more contributors coming, maybe its like a HuffPost thing. Or something.

posted by Jake at 5:21 PM on July 14, 2008

Isn't there supposed to be some sort of reality television show/talk show released in concert with this?

posted by Bill K at 5:31 PM on July 14, 2008

Yep. On Bravo.

posted by Rex at 5:32 PM on July 14, 2008

I live on the West Coast and I have to say...who? And why the hell would I give a shit? Talk of Internet celebrity seems like so much self-aggrandizing BS that means something to A) the people that write about it (ahem) and B) their mothers. Bring back pics from Britney stalkers for god's sake.

posted by Rusty at 5:50 PM on July 14, 2008

Well the branding is nice down there in the bottom in those little squares. They're like little products. You can almost hear the TV intro, "This the story... of three girls..." I haven't viewed any of the content but it doesn't matter - I could see this succeeding for the same reason a zillion reality shows draw viewers. I have zero interest in either of them, but they sell. Just productize some people and have them walk around and say stuff. People will watch! I mean, America's Next Seamstress or whatever the making-fashion-clothes show is? Who gives a shit?! Lots of people, it would seem. So if these girls can primp up nice for the camera in the latest styles and say a few saucy/giggly things in good lighting or at fancy places, why shouldn't they develop fan clubs who want to tune in? Maybe the teen girls will jump on it. Maybe Manhattanites. Maybe everyone who wishes they were a Manhattanite. With a bit of marketing I'm sure it could work. Call me if they get drunk and start with the french kissing.

posted by Eric at 6:05 PM on July 14, 2008

I know you're only the messenger but reading the nonsociety homepage made me puke in my mouth a little bit. However, I should make public that happens every time I read anything about Julia. (If you read this Julia, I'm sorry, I don't even know you and it's an unpleasant thing to say. But it's an involuntary gag reflex that just keeps happening.)

I think a more apt name would be noclass.com

posted by Ted R. at 7:03 PM on July 14, 2008

It's definitely not for everyone! Or most people!

That's something that I've noticed about the internet. It's okay that, like, Cosmo magazine (or whatever) exists -- no one bothers to say shit about it. But everyone treats any internet phenom as THEIRS.

This is peculiar.

posted by Rex at 7:10 PM on July 14, 2008

hey now, that "america's next seamstress show" (i assume you mean project runway?) is actually good, a number of the people on it have actual talent, let's see you, or me, who went to school for fashion, make a jacket/red carpet ready dress in 6 hours. it's beyond hard!

now big brother, or (omg, so genius)"i love money" or rock of love or any of those other shows, you can make fun of those. i do.

oh yeah, back to the actual topic. i'm from the west coast too, and i still don't know anything about julia allison other than rex watched her dog recently, and she wears a tutu sometimes.

cosmo is for reading at the nail salon while you are waiting so you can be baffled at who buys it. (other than nail salons.) this is the magazine that advertised how to have "sexy sex." i think they just replace the cover every month and leave the inside the same. anyway, jezebel does something about them (and all the other lady magazines) fairly often and is usually horrified.

posted by kittyholmes at 7:33 PM on July 14, 2008

I mentioned this to Rex earlier but I kind of think this is the first reality show featuring people who think they're on a famous person reality show (like the Osbournes, Gene Simmons or something else) but actually are non-famous reality stars more like the Real Housewives people.

And I'm pretty sure this is going to make this totally not compelling and somewhat depressing.

So the question is who went wrong where? I think mostly it's the mass hysteria of the internet.

Internet people find Allison compelling for the simple fact that she can make noise on the internet either through her actions or some sort of magic Gawker magnet that she holds in her pocket.

The definition of "Internet famous" has never been clearer.

Totally a book here Rex.

posted by Gavin at 1:47 AM on July 15, 2008

After the microfame article, three agents emailed me about turning it into a book.

Not exactly the project I wanna come outta the gates with!

posted by Rex at 8:57 AM on July 15, 2008

What gates are you coming out of? Are you sure you're behind the gates? Are you in tensed sprinter's position between the gates right now?

I'm sorry, am I making any sense? This whole Julia Allison thing may have done my head in.

posted by Choire at 9:11 AM on July 15, 2008

She may have just moved to no. 1 most hated person on the internet.

posted by marrina at 11:41 AM on July 15, 2008

This is the most insidery thing written in the history of the internet.

posted by Rex at 11:47 AM on July 15, 2008

Rex: aaaand it keeps getting even better. Chris Mohney just stopped by.

posted by katiebakes at 12:06 PM on July 15, 2008

@rex: we should not even link-blog anymore; we can just publish each other's emails. Juicy!

posted by marrina at 12:49 PM on July 15, 2008

It's true -- email is the new blog post.

IM sessions exist so they can be put on Tumblr.

posted by Rex at 12:52 PM on July 15, 2008

...meanwhile, actual conversations are relegated to the Overheard in NY discount bin.

posted by katiebakes at 1:01 PM on July 15, 2008

re: the nick denton emails you linked to.

Fuck. I know Harold Ford from college. Such a great inspiring person. I couldn't hang with him that much because he was so straight and serious and flew right, but he displayed top notch character and vision.

So frustrated to know Ms. Allison used tits and ass to fuck with that in any way. Seriously, take away her T & A and she be the nobody she really is.

posted by Ted R. at 4:32 PM on July 15, 2008

@Ted R.: I share at least a little of your sentiment but am trying to figure out why you and I and the internet feel this need to take people back down to where we feel they should be. Forgetting your connection to Ford for a moment and the specific incident of her blogging about him and the issues surrounding that, why does it bother us that she has gotten visibility and that it's probably her looks that did it? We could as well ask it about Paris Hilton and substitute money for looks. Everybody felt a visceral disgust for Hilton because she was getting the spotlight but hadn't done anything. And we still couldn't look away from stories about her. Do we want the spotlight ourselves? What value do we place on the spotlight? Is it the attention? People's admiration? What do we crave, that these people are getting, that puts us out of sorts because they are getting it? What does it mean to deserve the spotlight? I don't want to be famous but I still get these negative feelings for people. Por qua? Am I bitter that I'm not rich and better looking? Why do you, for example, feel it's important for JA's status as a nobody to be known and hopefully restored? Because I think you'd feel relieved and satisfied if she was dethroned and had to get an office job and stopped posting pictures of herself online, right? How is her current elevated/visible status hurting or otherwise affecting you? I asked the same question of myself but couldn't come up with the answer. There's something in there, though, some nugget of emotion of unknown origin. I can't figure out why we don't just look at other things.

posted by Eric at 10:28 PM on July 15, 2008

Part of the answer is that it's forced upon us, right? It's easy for Ted to ignore Julia from SF. It's harder when she's on the cover of the magazine that he looks forward to reading every month.

But fame, it's tricky. It's the one place that I feel like Warhol misled us. Fame isn't a goal, it's a means. Fame (or, more forgivingly, attention) is about the power to achieve, propogate, spread.

posted by Rex at 11:15 PM on July 15, 2008

@Rex. So by that logic, we haters have as a conscious or subconscious driver the need to achieve, propagate, and spread, but somebody is beating us to it. So maybe it's about competition - advancing our view of the way things should be over that of others. And in that way maybe we can find its origins in our biological roots - the drive to propagate and spread the seed. Men, at least, are biologically programmed to go out and fertilize as many women as possible and ensure that it is our genes that get passed down in place of our competitors. That is related to survival of the fittest. So maybe fame is a reflection of natural selection. Nobody wants to go extinct like neanderthals, so we get bitter when cro-magnons or homo sapiens come along with better tools and skills, or when paleoblog.rock says their tools are better but they really aren't. "Hey his axe is no better - look at it! People should not be gathering around his fire. My own fire, I humbly submit, is pretty good."

posted by Eric at 9:44 AM on July 16, 2008




NOTE: The commenting window has expired for this post.