for 16 December 1998. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Hit & Run

Subject: Zaniness is needed

You know, every once in
awhile I find myself perusing
through The Fish. It often
occurs to me that
many of the views
take a minute or
so to concoct and can be
considered "crazy" at most. You
seem to be lacking a level of
zaniness that used to be present
in your articles. Where are
opinions like, "Mao Tse-tung
is a yellow-bellied,
short-sighted, zany communist
dwarf" (that was a partial
quote from Rush Limbaugh ...
in keeping with the
under-a-minute tradition, I
didn't look up the actual
quote). That's it.

Joel McKellar

Post Script: Why not "a
phish, a barrel, and a
smoking gun"?

Not to fear, Josh. History
has shown again and again
that just when zaniness is
needed, wackiness ensues.

Rush Limbaugh really insulted
Mao? Man, he doesn't care
whose toes he steps on!

Bartel

Subject: The opposite of
irony

The last couple of days I've
had a running debate with
several people regarding what
exactly is the polar opposite
of irony. Initially, I leaned
toward sincerity but was
told that's more the opposite
of sarcasm. Now I tend to
identify authenticity as
the leading candidate but
still lack real satisfaction.
So I figured Suck, being
Suck, you guys would be able
to help or at least find
somebody who can ...

Sincerely (if not
authentically),

Mike Brutvan

Wow. The opposite of irony is
authenticity? What a sublime
example of how popular
culture can distort and twist
the meanings of words and the
understanding of simple
concepts. Current trends
indicate that irony is bad in
pretty much the same way that
cynicism and sarcasm and
pessimism and insincerity are
bad, right? So they all mean
pretty much the same thing.
So the opposite of any of
those words could be
something good like
straightforwardness or
sincerity or optimism or
authenticity.

Authenticity! There's a word bandied
about so often in advertising
that the word authentic
itself strikes most people as
inauthentic. That means
it's ironic, cynical,
pessimistic, insincere, and
just plain bad.

It sounds like you need to
incite running debates with
people who actually have
brains.

Bad Mike. Bad, bad Mike!

Dear Sucksters,

I recently stumbled across your
site and found it profoundly
refreshing. Hats off and
hip-hip for you and your
approach to the current
events of the world. No sissy
stuff here; I'm impressed!
It's intelligent, well written,
witty, and in good taste -
a fair exchange for rummaging
through the cyber trash. I plan
to visit the site regularly
and let the world in
on my new-found secret:
I'm getting something for my
hard-earned US$25
a month. Thanks and
keep up the good work!

Sincerely,

<KTChalus1@aol.com>

Thank you for your un-ironic
sincerity, sir. We admire
your optimistic authenticity.

Working is always good!

Sucksters

Ad Lib

Sucksters,

Great article! I have long
had the idea (along with
thousands of others, I'm
sure) that the next big thing
should be CTV (commercials-only
television), with CJs,
top-ten countdowns, maybe an
alternative 120 minutes of
underground, cutting-edge
commercials. I don't see how
a vehicle like this wouldn't
appeal to everybody.
Moreover, just think of the
low overhead, since every
company would line up to
basically pay for all of the
programming. No stars that
you'd have to pay out of your
pocket and no bad, annoying
shows to interrupt the only
thing worth watching on TV
anyway. It's long been true
for me personally that,
unlike most movies,
commercials are the only
things out there that can
actually elicit an emotional
response from me - all the way
from hatred to tearful,
tender warmth. And I view
myself as that kind of cold,
cynical person who hates to
let even the slightest shade
of emotion betray my exterior
(I'm German, for Christ's
sake). But the point is that
anything that has that kind
of power, regardless of
whether it's laudable or sad,
is truly real and powerful
art in the sense that this is
exactly what (classical)
music and all them pictures
hanging in those stuffy
buildings are supposed to do
to us, the human audience.
You could even make the
argument that the art
community has long felt this
to be the next step, as
suggested by works from Andy
Warhol to The Who's Sell
Out.

Joe B

CTV is a common dream, I
believe, and the idea that
all the programming would be
provided free makes it, on
first thought, seem
fool-proof. But the tougher
question is - where does the
revenue come from? Could you
actually get any advertisers
to pay for advertising on a
channel where other
advertisers are running their
commercials for free? Would
people pay for it as a
premium channel?

Although the second
alternative would be a grand
triumph if someone could
actually pull it off, it
seems fairly unlikely. And
the first? That might work,
and it would add an
interesting element to the
viewer's experience: You'd
constantly be wondering if
what you were watching was
"programming" or a
"commercial." This approach
has worked fairly well for
MTV, especially lately with
all its "specials" devoted
to new-release albums that
are essentially infomercials
that sacrifice efficiency
(i.e., an 800 number) for
credibility. So maybe it
could work for CTV as well.

Regards,

Huck

Subject: Re: The new trend in
advertising ...

is the presentation of
hideousness as hook.

Hear me out. The newer,
post-Dick Miller Lite ads
include the one with the fat
bald guy in underwear who
dances with an imposing
German shepherd. A lingering
shot of the dog resting its
moist jowls on the man's
shoulder evokes a shudder. A
related series of Miller
Genuine Draft ads include one
extolling the virtues of
bacon grease as we see a
black-and-white shot of
frying bacon being slapped
onto white bread, whereupon
it is consumed by a shirtless
fat guy. On a related note
(although it doesn't include
anything oozing or a fat guy)
are the commercials for
Levi's Hard Jeans where a
gravelly voiced announcer
informs us that the jeans are
more likely to injure the
wearer than anything else.
The jeans are not only tough,
they're openly hostile to the
wearer.

It seems that the science of
brand development has taken a
new turn in 1998. Ugliness
and repulsion are
cutting-edge tactics for ad
agencies who've obviously
used up every other approach
in their ongoing effort to
distinguish their products.
Watching a thinly veiled
portrayal of bestiality isn't
going to make anyone thirsty,
but it distinguishes itself
by its very hideousness. It
provokes a reaction that is
unlike our standard reaction
to ads - indifference. We
remember the brand as an
audacious and unique moment
amid the ongoing torrent of
advertising.

It's ads like these that make
me long for the good ol' days
when repulsion was the sole
province of avant-garde art
movements and the military.
As an emergent trend in mass
culture, I fear that the
future will bring mediocre
attempts at hideousness, on
the scale of the local
used-car guy dancing with a
German shepherd out on the lot
in front of deals galore. I
expected finer things from
our fin-de-siècle avatars of
culture. Instead I have a dog
slobbering bacon grease on my
shoulder as my jeans plot
injury.

Frandy

Well, you know Miller just
put up the Miller Lite
account for agency review -
so the hideousness trend may
already be spent. I am
predicting a return to the
sincere, heartfelt jingle....

Huck

I may have to print this
(yuck) just so I can look at
it every two years or so for
cultural reference.

This is just frigging swell.
Do you know how many
advertising email boxes this
piece is showing up in
tomorrow morning?! That's how
we kill any shred of
creativity, jerk; give it
some sort of creative
legitimacy. Why encourage
these freaks? If you still
have to get a "yes" from the
CEO, is it art? Makes you
wonder what DOESN'T make the
rotation.

In the spirit of the month,
has it ever crossed your mind
just how frighteningly bad
they get at the Christmas
season? If Johnny Mathis
phoning it in for the Gap
(he's on the edge of breaking
out in a belly laugh the
whole spot) is any clue, this
is gonna be a looong ho-ho
holiday. How about Johnny
Cash and "A boy named Sue"?

Nice piece of writing my
friend. This site rules.

gene grant

Is that Johnny Mathis with
the black eyeglasses and the
short bleached hair? That's
the only Christmas Gap ad
I've seen so far - I thought
it was just a few guys from
the warehouse or something.

Huck