Barry Trotter (Book 1)
The Hogwash School for Wizards was the most famous school in the wizarding world, and Barry Trotter was its most famous student. His mere presence made sure that every year twenty candidates applied for every open spot, no matter how rapacious Hogwash's tuition became. As a result, Barry and the school had come to an unspoken agreement: regardless of his grades, Barry could remain at Hogwash for as long as he wished. He had just begun his eleventh year...Freshman
Sleepy with boredom and gassy from lunch, Hart Fox sat in the hard plastic chair outside his dean's office. A kid walked in the door, pink detention slip in hand, bobbing his head a little so that the purple spikes of his mohawk didn't get bent on the transom. He slumped down next to Hart. Hart nodded--he remembered tis joker from sophomore American History, constantly arguing in favor of anarcho-syndicalism. Was his name Henry?...Sophomore
Arcing lazily through the air, the Frisbee smacked against the window. “Ooo-oo!” a chiseled and shirtless boy teased as it wobbleplummeted to the ground. “Sarah's in troub-le!”The beauty-boy was righter than he knew: Of all the windows on campus to hit, this one was the worst. It belonged to Stutts’ Professor of Clandestine Affairs, Glenbard North, who had destroyed more students than there were blades of grass on the freshly resodded Old Quad below...Coming Soon!
All you really gotta know is, I'm writing new things constantly and the more I write, the better my books get. So if you've read my earlier work--and millions of you have--we should keep in touch. This fall, at least one and maybe two new books will be available: a Dickens parody AND a comic mystery loosely based on The Beatles. Drop me an email at mikesnewbooks[at]gmail[dot]com, and I'll be sure to let you know release dates, special deals, etc.Thursday, August 26, 2004
Headline for a parody news article I will never write...
"Experts Believe Kubler-Ross Skipped Several Steps Before Dying."
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
This interview with Rick Hertzberg...
...gets a lot more interesting in the second half, when they start lambasting Bush and talking about Leon W.'s awful review in the NYTBR. All of it's quite "inside baseball," but those of you interested in politics and publishing might enjoy what he has to say.
Here's Rick H. on Bush:
"Bush II is much more of a tool [than Reagan was; Bush II] is manipulated through oedipal signals. He is a reformed alcoholic who is interested in a certain kind of one-dimensional religiosity that he has transferred from the AA level of religiosity and made that his model of world politics. And he is determined to show up his father, show that he is as good as or better than his father is, and he is easily manipulated through these two factors. He doesn’t have any real political beliefs. He is somebody who was really not interested in politics, if he is now. I think he is not particularly interested in politics even now.
Here's Rick H. on Bush:
"Bush II is much more of a tool [than Reagan was; Bush II] is manipulated through oedipal signals. He is a reformed alcoholic who is interested in a certain kind of one-dimensional religiosity that he has transferred from the AA level of religiosity and made that his model of world politics. And he is determined to show up his father, show that he is as good as or better than his father is, and he is easily manipulated through these two factors. He doesn’t have any real political beliefs. He is somebody who was really not interested in politics, if he is now. I think he is not particularly interested in politics even now.
Paul Krugman is right on the money...
....this morning in the Times. His column starts out this way:
"Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more."
Couldn't have written it better myself. Here's the rest.
"Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more."
Couldn't have written it better myself. Here's the rest.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Jon on the radio, on Iraq
He's on RIGHT NOW (10.15am CST)--check it out!
http://www.wusb.org/hear_us.shtml
http://www.wusb.org/hear_us.shtml
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Attention Blogger experts
As most of you know, I'm not very computer-savvy. So it should come as no surprise that I have never figured out how to
1) put up an archive; and
2) set up RSS or a notify list.
Can anybody help me with this?
1) put up an archive; and
2) set up RSS or a notify list.
Can anybody help me with this?
A very funny Ian Frazier piece spoofing...
...libertarians is here. He's really top-notch.
Saw the documentary "The Corporation" last night. Someone told me--might've been Jon--that the film was really a multi-part PBS series masquerading as a documentary, and I think that's perceptive. It's a bit shapeless, but very thought-provoking. Definitely worth seeing.
By the way, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the 219th top-grossing movie (US Domestic) of ALL TIME.
Saw the documentary "The Corporation" last night. Someone told me--might've been Jon--that the film was really a multi-part PBS series masquerading as a documentary, and I think that's perceptive. It's a bit shapeless, but very thought-provoking. Definitely worth seeing.
By the way, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the 219th top-grossing movie (US Domestic) of ALL TIME.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
How to Tell a Workaholic
A workaholic's the kind of person who can't tell whether he's had a busy week or not. I have no idea. On Monday, Kate and I went to see the movie "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle." It was very funny, and I particularly liked the main characters. After twenty years of white, frat boy protagonists (thanks, National Lampoon), having main characters from different backgrounds is great new territory.
Speaking of National Lampoon, on Tuesday Kate and I popped in a DVD of "Animal House," the 1978 ur-college comedy. In addition to being a stroll down Memory Lane (I remember seeing AH at a drive-in with my folks when I was nine), I had a couple of thoughts on why this movie is really a brilliant comedy:
1) It's multi-level: stupid-funny but also well-observed and satirical. As opposed to say, "Old School," AH actually addresses its time period (1962 in America) in a consistent, and satirically relevant way. There is a point to it, which was ignored by the media when it came out; the media preferred to talk about food fights and toga parties The story of the Deltas versus the Omegas is the story of the Sixties, one of those rare times where Delta-types had their day. This makes what John Landis said somewhere recently even more ironic. Landis, the film's director, said that people who are clearly Omegas--like the Bush family, for example--tell him, "In college, me and my buddies were totally Deltas!" And that, my friends, is what makes satirists kill themselves.
2) Its attempt at a central story--the love affair between Boon and Katie--adds depth to the movie without slowing it down. You can't say the same thing about Caddyshack, for example; and the romance in Stripes is completely at odds with the spirit of the movie.
3) It's surprisingly old-fashioned; I was surprised at how much physical comedy there is in the movie, which works. Belushi was a talented physical comedian, when he was pushed. (Most of his career, he was allowed to coast on his persona, but at the time of AH, Belushi was still busting his ass to become famous.)
Finally, on Thursday Jon came over to pick up the manuscript of my college novel, and we watched "JFK," which he had never seen. What a great piece of filmmaking; I think that's precisely why Oliver Stone got torn a new one when the movie first came out. JFK works on such a visceral level that the Lone Nut theory looks like the foolishness it has always been--and the Warren Commission defenders take this personally. If Stone is an irresponsible polemicist, what does that make people like Scotty Reston and Anthony Lewis, columnists for the Times ca. 1963, who convicted Oswald before any investigation had been done? Or Tom Wicker, who still believes that the press got it right? JFK made the mainstream media mad because it showed that, when the chips are down, they suck at their jobs. Not only did they miss the biggest story of the century, they actively worked on the side of NOT investigating it properly, making it an open question for all time. Does this sound like pre-Iraq coverage to anybody else?
But my main thought on watching the movie was this: whoever pulled the trigger(s), JFK's murder came out of a time of paranoia, secrecy, unbridled military power, and governmental corruption on a grand scale. In other words, a time much like today. Malcolm X was excoriated for calling JFK's murder a case of "chickens coming home to roost," but after what happened in the rest of the Sixties, can we really say that he was wrong?
Speaking of National Lampoon, on Tuesday Kate and I popped in a DVD of "Animal House," the 1978 ur-college comedy. In addition to being a stroll down Memory Lane (I remember seeing AH at a drive-in with my folks when I was nine), I had a couple of thoughts on why this movie is really a brilliant comedy:
1) It's multi-level: stupid-funny but also well-observed and satirical. As opposed to say, "Old School," AH actually addresses its time period (1962 in America) in a consistent, and satirically relevant way. There is a point to it, which was ignored by the media when it came out; the media preferred to talk about food fights and toga parties The story of the Deltas versus the Omegas is the story of the Sixties, one of those rare times where Delta-types had their day. This makes what John Landis said somewhere recently even more ironic. Landis, the film's director, said that people who are clearly Omegas--like the Bush family, for example--tell him, "In college, me and my buddies were totally Deltas!" And that, my friends, is what makes satirists kill themselves.
2) Its attempt at a central story--the love affair between Boon and Katie--adds depth to the movie without slowing it down. You can't say the same thing about Caddyshack, for example; and the romance in Stripes is completely at odds with the spirit of the movie.
3) It's surprisingly old-fashioned; I was surprised at how much physical comedy there is in the movie, which works. Belushi was a talented physical comedian, when he was pushed. (Most of his career, he was allowed to coast on his persona, but at the time of AH, Belushi was still busting his ass to become famous.)
Finally, on Thursday Jon came over to pick up the manuscript of my college novel, and we watched "JFK," which he had never seen. What a great piece of filmmaking; I think that's precisely why Oliver Stone got torn a new one when the movie first came out. JFK works on such a visceral level that the Lone Nut theory looks like the foolishness it has always been--and the Warren Commission defenders take this personally. If Stone is an irresponsible polemicist, what does that make people like Scotty Reston and Anthony Lewis, columnists for the Times ca. 1963, who convicted Oswald before any investigation had been done? Or Tom Wicker, who still believes that the press got it right? JFK made the mainstream media mad because it showed that, when the chips are down, they suck at their jobs. Not only did they miss the biggest story of the century, they actively worked on the side of NOT investigating it properly, making it an open question for all time. Does this sound like pre-Iraq coverage to anybody else?
But my main thought on watching the movie was this: whoever pulled the trigger(s), JFK's murder came out of a time of paranoia, secrecy, unbridled military power, and governmental corruption on a grand scale. In other words, a time much like today. Malcolm X was excoriated for calling JFK's murder a case of "chickens coming home to roost," but after what happened in the rest of the Sixties, can we really say that he was wrong?
Sunday, August 8, 2004
How not to review a book
If you'd like to see how NOT to review a book, check out Leon Wieseltier's review of Nicholson Baker's new novel, "Checkpoint," in Sunday's New York Times Book Review. "Checkpoint," in case you haven't heard, is apparently a gambol inside the head of someone who wants to shoot President Bush over the War in Iraq.
Like it or not, for the last forty years, assassination has been a tragically recurrent theme in American political and public life. Assassination--strangely clumped on the liberal-reformer part of the continuum, don'tcha know?--has shaped all our lives, mostly for the worse. As we approach another Presidential election, the most contentious one of my lifetime, I think the persistent American impulse towards political violence is a legitimate topic for a serious novel. Thus, it deserves serious treatment in a review inside the paper of record.
I haven't read "Checkpoint," nor have any great desire to do so. Nor do I espouse assassination as a political tactic, sadly effective though it may sometimes be. Think this country would be a bit different if JFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, MLK, and RFK had lived? Those, my friends, are just the greatest hits of a single decade. Once again, like it or not, assassination is as American as baseball, and the only way to minimize its effects is by acknowledging its possibility, as uncomfortable as it might be to do so.
Wieseltier, who is the fiction editor for The New Republic, begins his review from a position of revulsion for the novel--"This scummy little book"-- then, halfway through, as if the reviewer couldn't bear to discuss the book any longer--the review jettisons "Checkpoint" entirely, and devolves into an impassioned plea for liberal levelheadedness. "In this season of ferocity," Weiseltier writes, "it is worth insisting that Bush-hatred is generally not a plot to kill the president." The only rational response to this statement is: Yes, Leon, most people--even those who despise Bush--will not entertain shooting him. Who are you trying to reassure? Does Leon Wieseltier want to shoot President Bush?
I'm kidding, of course. If Wieseltier wants to write an article about how American liberals aren't well served by aping the well-worn right-wing tactics of demagoguery, I'm sure there's a case to be made, and plenty of places for him to sell that. But in the meantime, he should let somebody actually review Baker's book. It is precisely our current season of ferocity that makes "Checkpoint" germane.
But the portion that made me blog was this:
"The opinion that these are not normal times, that the Bush years are apocalyptic years, is quite common," Wieseltier writes, as if this were the fruit of some sorrowful mass delusion on the part of average Americans hankering for more eventful lives. If any group is responsible for the Bush years being perceived as apocalyptic, it's the Bush Administration, with its evangelical President determined to cast the war on terror as a personalized, epochal gunfight between Jesus and Allah. Or perhaps it's their manipulation of mass fear; liberals were not the ones conjuring up images of "a mushroom cloud" in the wake of 9/11, to gin up support for a war. The Bush Administration have unleashed powerful emotions for their own use and benefit, but once the genies of fear and righteousness are conjured, they move as they wish. They lodge in unpredictable places, and that's why politicians should be wary of using them. Oswald came from the Cold War; Sirhan from the festering Arab/Israeli conflict; Ray from the cauldron of American race relations. Ferocious times, indeed.
Back to Wieseltier: ''We are no longer in the ordinary times we were in when the conservatives took out after Bill Clinton,' Janet Malcolm recently explained in a letter to this newspaper. 'We are in a time now that is as fearful as the period after Munich.' Life in South Egremont, Mass., may be excruciating, but Malcolm's knowledge of the period after Munich has plainly grown dim."
Feeling superior is great sport--for people like Wieseltier, it's probably their main sustenance--but even the basest clod could see what Malcolm meant by her comment: the period before the unleashing of a great evil. "Munich, see lessons of," is bandied about constantly on the right and the left, and insisting that Malcolm hold to its precise meaning after sixty years of use as cultural shorthand is infantile. Has Bush's war in Iraq unleashed a great evil, as Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia ushered in the Second World War? We don't know yet, can't know yet. But I'm not particularly bothered by the overstatement of the threat; better to overestimate the danger, and fix it in November, than to shoehorn our irresponsible rush to war into politics-as-usual because we cannot psychologically handle the alternative. Now may not be Munich, but it ain't Pleasantville, either.
Wieseltier again: "And who, in her ominous analogy, is Hitler? If it is Osama bin Laden, then she might have a little sympathy for the seriousness of this administration about American security, whatever her views about some of its policies. If it is George W. Bush. . . . "
"If it is Osama..." What coy bushwa--if the Bush Administration were protecting the US with appropriate seriousness (to use LW's word), our soldiers would be at home searching container ships, not over in Iraq. It is precisely Bush's lack of seriousness regarding the task at hand that makes most of the people in this country distrust him so.
Obviously, Bush is not Hitler--they are two individuals shaped by and shaping two different eras--but the idea that Bush's tactics have been Hitlerian is so repugnant, so beyond the pale to Wieseltier, that he cannot even bring himself to type it. And yet, who can deny that Bush has constantly returned to the politics of "fer us or agin us" patriotism; that he constantly invokes the security of the homeland as a rationale for every political manuever; that he represents a radical outgrowth of a fringe segment of our country; that he appears to use fear as a governing tool; that he has sought to roll back civil liberties in the name of expedience; and so on. Hitler comparisons may be common currency on the Internet, but Bush has done what he has done, and needs to be seen for what his actions have shown him to be: at best incompetent, at worst, undemocratic.
And my final bit of Leon for the evening, still speaking of poor Janet Malcolm's letter to the Times: "Well, she continues: 'Those of us who are demonizing George W. Bush are doing so not because of his morals but because we are scared of what another four years of his administration will do to this country and to the world.' So whether or not Bush is Hitler, he is a devil. This is what now passes for smart."
And this is what now passes for book reviewing. Nicholas Kristof says we shouldn't call Bush a liar, even though he lies. Now Leon Wieseltier says we shouldn't hate Bush, no matter what he does, because that makes us like the right-wingers. What softheaded nonsense! The only rational thing to do is judge Bush on his statements, actions, and effects. If he lies, he's a liar. If he's despicable, despise him. Or not--but the psychological needs of the pundit class shouldn't enter into it. "Don't call Bush a liar because that makes me uncomfortable"; "Don't write about assassinating the President because that makes me uncomfortable." Jeez--stop writing for the Times, guys, and get a therapist. Maybe if you both see the same one, she'll give you a bulk discount.
Like it or not, for the last forty years, assassination has been a tragically recurrent theme in American political and public life. Assassination--strangely clumped on the liberal-reformer part of the continuum, don'tcha know?--has shaped all our lives, mostly for the worse. As we approach another Presidential election, the most contentious one of my lifetime, I think the persistent American impulse towards political violence is a legitimate topic for a serious novel. Thus, it deserves serious treatment in a review inside the paper of record.
I haven't read "Checkpoint," nor have any great desire to do so. Nor do I espouse assassination as a political tactic, sadly effective though it may sometimes be. Think this country would be a bit different if JFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, MLK, and RFK had lived? Those, my friends, are just the greatest hits of a single decade. Once again, like it or not, assassination is as American as baseball, and the only way to minimize its effects is by acknowledging its possibility, as uncomfortable as it might be to do so.
Wieseltier, who is the fiction editor for The New Republic, begins his review from a position of revulsion for the novel--"This scummy little book"-- then, halfway through, as if the reviewer couldn't bear to discuss the book any longer--the review jettisons "Checkpoint" entirely, and devolves into an impassioned plea for liberal levelheadedness. "In this season of ferocity," Weiseltier writes, "it is worth insisting that Bush-hatred is generally not a plot to kill the president." The only rational response to this statement is: Yes, Leon, most people--even those who despise Bush--will not entertain shooting him. Who are you trying to reassure? Does Leon Wieseltier want to shoot President Bush?
I'm kidding, of course. If Wieseltier wants to write an article about how American liberals aren't well served by aping the well-worn right-wing tactics of demagoguery, I'm sure there's a case to be made, and plenty of places for him to sell that. But in the meantime, he should let somebody actually review Baker's book. It is precisely our current season of ferocity that makes "Checkpoint" germane.
But the portion that made me blog was this:
"The opinion that these are not normal times, that the Bush years are apocalyptic years, is quite common," Wieseltier writes, as if this were the fruit of some sorrowful mass delusion on the part of average Americans hankering for more eventful lives. If any group is responsible for the Bush years being perceived as apocalyptic, it's the Bush Administration, with its evangelical President determined to cast the war on terror as a personalized, epochal gunfight between Jesus and Allah. Or perhaps it's their manipulation of mass fear; liberals were not the ones conjuring up images of "a mushroom cloud" in the wake of 9/11, to gin up support for a war. The Bush Administration have unleashed powerful emotions for their own use and benefit, but once the genies of fear and righteousness are conjured, they move as they wish. They lodge in unpredictable places, and that's why politicians should be wary of using them. Oswald came from the Cold War; Sirhan from the festering Arab/Israeli conflict; Ray from the cauldron of American race relations. Ferocious times, indeed.
Back to Wieseltier: ''We are no longer in the ordinary times we were in when the conservatives took out after Bill Clinton,' Janet Malcolm recently explained in a letter to this newspaper. 'We are in a time now that is as fearful as the period after Munich.' Life in South Egremont, Mass., may be excruciating, but Malcolm's knowledge of the period after Munich has plainly grown dim."
Feeling superior is great sport--for people like Wieseltier, it's probably their main sustenance--but even the basest clod could see what Malcolm meant by her comment: the period before the unleashing of a great evil. "Munich, see lessons of," is bandied about constantly on the right and the left, and insisting that Malcolm hold to its precise meaning after sixty years of use as cultural shorthand is infantile. Has Bush's war in Iraq unleashed a great evil, as Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia ushered in the Second World War? We don't know yet, can't know yet. But I'm not particularly bothered by the overstatement of the threat; better to overestimate the danger, and fix it in November, than to shoehorn our irresponsible rush to war into politics-as-usual because we cannot psychologically handle the alternative. Now may not be Munich, but it ain't Pleasantville, either.
Wieseltier again: "And who, in her ominous analogy, is Hitler? If it is Osama bin Laden, then she might have a little sympathy for the seriousness of this administration about American security, whatever her views about some of its policies. If it is George W. Bush. . . . "
"If it is Osama..." What coy bushwa--if the Bush Administration were protecting the US with appropriate seriousness (to use LW's word), our soldiers would be at home searching container ships, not over in Iraq. It is precisely Bush's lack of seriousness regarding the task at hand that makes most of the people in this country distrust him so.
Obviously, Bush is not Hitler--they are two individuals shaped by and shaping two different eras--but the idea that Bush's tactics have been Hitlerian is so repugnant, so beyond the pale to Wieseltier, that he cannot even bring himself to type it. And yet, who can deny that Bush has constantly returned to the politics of "fer us or agin us" patriotism; that he constantly invokes the security of the homeland as a rationale for every political manuever; that he represents a radical outgrowth of a fringe segment of our country; that he appears to use fear as a governing tool; that he has sought to roll back civil liberties in the name of expedience; and so on. Hitler comparisons may be common currency on the Internet, but Bush has done what he has done, and needs to be seen for what his actions have shown him to be: at best incompetent, at worst, undemocratic.
And my final bit of Leon for the evening, still speaking of poor Janet Malcolm's letter to the Times: "Well, she continues: 'Those of us who are demonizing George W. Bush are doing so not because of his morals but because we are scared of what another four years of his administration will do to this country and to the world.' So whether or not Bush is Hitler, he is a devil. This is what now passes for smart."
And this is what now passes for book reviewing. Nicholas Kristof says we shouldn't call Bush a liar, even though he lies. Now Leon Wieseltier says we shouldn't hate Bush, no matter what he does, because that makes us like the right-wingers. What softheaded nonsense! The only rational thing to do is judge Bush on his statements, actions, and effects. If he lies, he's a liar. If he's despicable, despise him. Or not--but the psychological needs of the pundit class shouldn't enter into it. "Don't call Bush a liar because that makes me uncomfortable"; "Don't write about assassinating the President because that makes me uncomfortable." Jeez--stop writing for the Times, guys, and get a therapist. Maybe if you both see the same one, she'll give you a bulk discount.
Saturday, August 7, 2004
Napoleon Dynamite is, well, dynamite
Modest, yes. Extremely funny, too. If you're not sick of cinematic depictions of high school yet, you really ought to go see the new movie, Napoleon Dynamite. My wife Kate, ever the connoisseur of geekdom, insisted. Briefly: Napoleon is an incredibly gangly, nerdy kid going to high school in Idaho. The movie follows him through about a year's worth of his life. I laughed VERY hard.
One movie I'm not going to see: Open Water. Didn't see Blair Witch, and I've been afraid of sharks since I was five. No thanks.
And since we're on the topic of fear, I just finished a draft of this comic novel; it's getting read by the braintrust (Kate, Jon, and a selected few others) even I type. Or maybe they're just going to *say* they read it. "Oh, yeah, Mike. It was...really good."
Oh well, even it they hate it I have a whole bunch of new (used) books to comfort me: last night Jon, Kate and I went to the annual Oak Park Library Book Fair, which is a booklover's paradise: 50,000 books at low, low, low prices. Fifty cents per paperback, hardcovers for a buck. Truly awesome--Oak Park is my adopted hometown, and things like this are exactly why...And yes, I saw a copy of Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody nestled in among the humor!
One movie I'm not going to see: Open Water. Didn't see Blair Witch, and I've been afraid of sharks since I was five. No thanks.
And since we're on the topic of fear, I just finished a draft of this comic novel; it's getting read by the braintrust (Kate, Jon, and a selected few others) even I type. Or maybe they're just going to *say* they read it. "Oh, yeah, Mike. It was...really good."
Oh well, even it they hate it I have a whole bunch of new (used) books to comfort me: last night Jon, Kate and I went to the annual Oak Park Library Book Fair, which is a booklover's paradise: 50,000 books at low, low, low prices. Fifty cents per paperback, hardcovers for a buck. Truly awesome--Oak Park is my adopted hometown, and things like this are exactly why...And yes, I saw a copy of Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody nestled in among the humor!
Wednesday, August 4, 2004
Happy Birthday, SJP
Friend Lee Tyler sent me this fine appreciation of humorist S.J. Perelman by TIME columnist Richard Corliss. I tried to quibble with it several times--now there's a window into my personality--but really couldn't.
I do have a quibble with Perelman himself, however: the style that cracked a million thesauri--the very thing people like Corliss so lionize him for--is a full-body Achilles heel. When it works to convey precise meaning through more general, yet still flavorful imagery and references--"rapier-thin, cucumber-cool"--it works beautifully. But when it's simply dragging a bucket along the murky bottom of SJP's consciousness, referencing old movies he saw as a boy, it's not as much a "style" as a bizarre neurological disorder. It doesn't communicate to anyone but the author, and that's a flaw in any audience-driven art. It's clearly why Perelman hasn't spawned an industry like Thurber has, or blazed a stylistic trail like Benchley has, or remains catnip to a certain type of reader like Parker is, and will ever be. Perelman is to humor what haute couture is to fashion. Beloved by cognoscenti, almost theoretical.
But such stuff, writing style or future renown, is fundamentally out of one's control, so perhaps it's fairer--certainly it's accurate--to say that, as someone who helped to shape not one but two great American comics, Groucho Marx and Woody Allen, SJP's place in humor history is secure. People don't read any short literary humor today, not just Perelman; if print was the dominant form, he's still be talked about, like Lord Buckley and Ernie Kovacs and Harvey Kurtzman are still talked about, cult figures who toiled in art forms that still thrive. Like them, SJP represents the outer edge, the farthest one aspect of comedy writing has ever been taken, and there's currency in that--at least within the fraternity of humorists.
I do have a quibble with Perelman himself, however: the style that cracked a million thesauri--the very thing people like Corliss so lionize him for--is a full-body Achilles heel. When it works to convey precise meaning through more general, yet still flavorful imagery and references--"rapier-thin, cucumber-cool"--it works beautifully. But when it's simply dragging a bucket along the murky bottom of SJP's consciousness, referencing old movies he saw as a boy, it's not as much a "style" as a bizarre neurological disorder. It doesn't communicate to anyone but the author, and that's a flaw in any audience-driven art. It's clearly why Perelman hasn't spawned an industry like Thurber has, or blazed a stylistic trail like Benchley has, or remains catnip to a certain type of reader like Parker is, and will ever be. Perelman is to humor what haute couture is to fashion. Beloved by cognoscenti, almost theoretical.
But such stuff, writing style or future renown, is fundamentally out of one's control, so perhaps it's fairer--certainly it's accurate--to say that, as someone who helped to shape not one but two great American comics, Groucho Marx and Woody Allen, SJP's place in humor history is secure. People don't read any short literary humor today, not just Perelman; if print was the dominant form, he's still be talked about, like Lord Buckley and Ernie Kovacs and Harvey Kurtzman are still talked about, cult figures who toiled in art forms that still thrive. Like them, SJP represents the outer edge, the farthest one aspect of comedy writing has ever been taken, and there's currency in that--at least within the fraternity of humorists.
Long time no blog!
Just back from a trip to Minneapolis, Minnesota--a delightful pocket-sized city, in case you're ever tempted--where my brother-in-law got married. Kate and I took Happy the Honda first to Madison, Wisconsin, Kate's old college town (and yes, birthplace of The Onion) and home of the Mansion Hill Inn. Then, after a leisurely stroll down State Street--the main drag--with me snapping photos all the way (I'm researching for this new series of books set at a college; almost finished with the first one) we headed on to Minneapolis.
When I say "headed on," keep in mind that it was four and a half hours.
On the plus side, however, it's really pretty country up there, with lots of rolling green hills, and plenty of NPR stations along the way. Anyway, we stayed at The Grand Hotel, a lovely place right downtown. I'm sure everybody who goes to Minneapolis mentions this, but the entire downtown is connected with skyways, so that you can walk around in the winter without freezing your ass off. I guess the winters are bumped from merely unpleasant (as they are here in Chicago) up to Donner Party-lethal. Anyway, it's very neat. The skyways, not the Donner Party.
On the way out of town, Kate and I stopped at The Mall of America. I'd stop short of saying that it is a must-see, but it is something to see. There's an amusement park, and an aquarium--where Kate and I petted cow-faced rays--as well as the usual profusion of Barnes and Nobles and such. Speaking of, I met two very nice clerks at the B&N, both of whom had read Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody! Who woulda thunk it?
So I'm back now, and drowning in work--finishing this college book before my annual New York/New Haven Bother-the-Students trip; finishing an update to Barrytrotter.com; working on this Narnia parody; and bearing up somehow under the usual welter. I'll post pictures if I can figure out how.
Am I changed by the trip? Not really, but I do understand Garrison Keillor a lot better, now.
When I say "headed on," keep in mind that it was four and a half hours.
On the plus side, however, it's really pretty country up there, with lots of rolling green hills, and plenty of NPR stations along the way. Anyway, we stayed at The Grand Hotel, a lovely place right downtown. I'm sure everybody who goes to Minneapolis mentions this, but the entire downtown is connected with skyways, so that you can walk around in the winter without freezing your ass off. I guess the winters are bumped from merely unpleasant (as they are here in Chicago) up to Donner Party-lethal. Anyway, it's very neat. The skyways, not the Donner Party.
On the way out of town, Kate and I stopped at The Mall of America. I'd stop short of saying that it is a must-see, but it is something to see. There's an amusement park, and an aquarium--where Kate and I petted cow-faced rays--as well as the usual profusion of Barnes and Nobles and such. Speaking of, I met two very nice clerks at the B&N, both of whom had read Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody! Who woulda thunk it?
So I'm back now, and drowning in work--finishing this college book before my annual New York/New Haven Bother-the-Students trip; finishing an update to Barrytrotter.com; working on this Narnia parody; and bearing up somehow under the usual welter. I'll post pictures if I can figure out how.
Am I changed by the trip? Not really, but I do understand Garrison Keillor a lot better, now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
