Round-up

Ananova reports that J.K. Rowling will make a cameo on The Simpsons. Here's a funny Saddam vs. W debate from The Guardian. And here's an older piece on Iraq by ex-Python Terry Jones, always amusing.



Media Bistro is running an interesting interview with Onion stalwart Maria Schneider. What a talented writer she is--the voice of Herbert Kornfield, Jean Teasdale, among others. I wish they'd print a byline box, or something; team-writing is great, but shared credit so often means somebody gets screwed. Sean Kelly's still annoyed about the 1964 High School Yearbook, and I can understand why.



The Schneider interview ends on a bit of a sour note, unfortunately. In response to the question "What would you say to a college kid whose dream job is to work at The Onion?" she says (and I've edited a bit here):"...the huge amount of parody news that has come up in reaction to The Onion—I guess this sounds bitchy, but I don't really think they have a reason to exist. Sorry, I know that sounds awful...When I hear about The Onion having imitators, I just think, "Why? Do us one better. Think of something else that we haven't thought of."



I hear that, but...



What's behind the growth of The Onion--apart from its tremendous quality--is the internet. If there was no internet, it's almost certain that the scale of their success (which is still nowhere near the level of success of National Lampoon in its heyday, either in money earned or cultural impact) would be much smaller; they'd probably still be in Madison, for one thing. Maybe they'd be a cult thing like George Meyer's Army Man was. My point is that The Onion's current preeminence comes from a lot of factors, not just funniness. The growth of parody news comes from its timeliness, its universality, its inexhaustible source, and from its ability to be encapsulated in a 250-word article that can be read on a website or sent in an email. That's why the Onion does it, and that why all their imitators do it, too.



Nobody owns a form of comedy. The Onion innovated within an old form; their breakthrough was to apply collegiate relativism to the form of the parody newspaper. "Why is an earthquake in China automatically more important than me eating ten Ho Hos? And what if I throw up?" While distributing appropriate props, it's important to remember that a lot of what they do is simply extremely well-crafted college humor--"Clinton Dispatches Vowels," for example. While they do what they do very well, they have a very limited scope. At what point is it okay to say to them, "Okay, you've done parody news--now move on." Isn't it equally valid to ask them, "You guys are successful, talented, secure--now, do yourselves one better."



Why am I wasting your valuable time talking about this? Because this kind of "our way is the good way and everything else is shit" attitude is rampant in comedy. While it's an understandable by-product of the team-writing process, it meanly impedes creativity and is woefully small-minded. All of us would do well to remember that the comic Muse is fickle, and that should temper our criticisms.



A friend of mine once said, "Comedy writers need to be more like jazz musicians. If somebody plays in a way you don't like, you don't criticize--you say, 'He's just trying to hear his horn.'" Those imitators that irritate Maria Schneider--and sure, some of them are awful--may contain the seeds of the next Onion. And even if they don't, we're all chasing the same Muse, and should respect each other's quest for it--if not the manner in which we chase!