for 24 March 1999. Updated every WEEKDAY.

So ... now that Lolita has
been released in the United
States and you can rent it at
your friendly neighborhood
Blockbuster, have you changed
your mind any about the scene
in which Humbert's banging
Lolita while she reads the
comics?

David Daniel
<puellaphile@yahoo.com>

No, unless he was banging her
while she was reading Family Circus.
I wrote the column based on
interviews and articles about
the film; it's not a review
of the film. And I have no
interest in seeing Lyne's
version. I've read the book
and seen Big Stan Kubrick's
version several times, but
those pictures of Frank
Langella playing Quilty look
abominable to me.

Furious George

Filler: Wilty, Guilty

Polly,

In my day, we had to
fantasize about covering
someone with whipped cream,
or perhaps butter. How about
some guilt over the plight of
the small dairy farmer who is
squeezed by giant
corporations on one side and
faddish niche markets on the
other?

I feel really bad about
bringing it up. (Insert an
obvious pun about a lactose
intolerant licking dairy
here.)

Ned Kittlitz
<kittlitz@world.std.com>

Look, Ned. I've got enough
guilt to deal with as it is.
Besides, I'm as big a
supporter of faddish niche
markets as anyone. What would
our lives be without faddish
niche markets? What would we
build our dreams around
without some embodiment of
trendy or empty cool to
covet?

Farmers, shmarmers. Let
trend-driven capitalism reign
in all its horrifying glory!

Covetous but still a commie,

Polly

Polly,

In today's Filler, you wrote,
"Instead we just have to rent
Blade Runner again and
again."

I don't really understand
this. Do you mean you rent it
but never finish watching it,
so guiltily you rent it again
and again or is there
something else?

Thanks,

dh
<Heath.Douglas@ic.gc.ca>

Blade Runner is all about
depraved living in 2019 Los
Angeles. Instead of becoming
pedophiles and murderers, we
have to watch Blade Runner
again and again.

OK, it was a weak reference,
I'll admit it. I'm big enough
to admit when I screw up. I'm
strong enough to allow for
the occasional mistake. Hell,
I can even admit to a
constant stream of errors....

Less human than human,

Polly

Subject: You're not really
gay, are you?

Wow, one of my most enduring
and comforting fantasies has
suffered a crisis akin to
that which a balloon
experiences upon the
application of a pin.

Say it ain't so! ... And,
could you send me a few nudie
pix of yourself either way?

HMcPherson
<HMcPherson@email.msn.com>

Not only am I gay, I'm a gay
man. Haven't you heard the
truth yet? Just keep in mind
that your lusting for me
indicates your true, deeply
buried homosexual urges. Let
them out; you'll be a lot
happier.

I'll send some good pix once
my man titties get a nice
springtime golden glow to
them.

Paulie

Subject: Down Croppie, lie
down! (Suck, 9 March 1999)

I was surprised to see Hunter
S. Thompson's Fear and
Loathing on the Campaign
Trail clocking in at No. 100.
I'm sure it was fun to read
back in the day, but like so
many things from that period
- Rod McKuen, The Dancing Wu
Li Masters, anything by Tom
Wolfe before the rocket men
book, old Doonesbury strips -
they don't age well. Personally,
I'd rate Thompson's book
on the Hell's Angels as superior
journalism.

The other issue I have with
NYU's top 100 pieces of
journalism is that it
short-shrifts on-the-spot
reporting. There weren't any
mentions of radio broadcasts
in the top 100. What about
Herb Morrison's "Oh, the
humanity" broadcast of the
Hindenburg disaster? And more
recently, George Holliday's
amateur videotape of the
Rodney King beating, which
directly led to the LA riots
- wasn't this just as
important as anything that
Tom Wolfe has ever written?

I'm tired of organizations
and cliques trying to
establish cred by writing a
list. That is intellectually
lazy. What would be far and
away more interesting is if
these special interest groups
said, "This is what we know,
and this is where we learned
it."

Simon Adkins
<random@infi.net>

Actually, there were two
radio broadcasts on the list,
both by Edward Murrow. But
you're right about the
amateur videotape - as the
precursor to all the "World's
Most" shows dominating the
airwaves currently, it should
have been recognized.

Best,

Huck

Good article, but a question
arises: Are there specific
articles by "CEOs, nurses,
feminists, homosexuals,
chemists, chip fabricators,
priests, sitcom stars, tree
huggers, and ESPN
enthusiasts" that you believe
should have been included in
this top 100 list? Or are you
simply objecting that "only
15 were created by women;
minorities were similarly
underrepresented"?

If the latter, this seems an
odd argument; since
journalism has been
traditionally dominated by
white men (but lesser
so today), it's not
surprising they ended up
writing most of the articles
and even most of the "top"
ones.

This doesn't mean that
there's no disparity, but are
you suggesting they should
have included journalism
pieces by ethnicity and
gender as opposed to their
own guidelines (however
insulated and elitist those
guidelines may have been)?

Shawn Metcalf
<smetcalf@gtsgral.com>

No. When I talk about "CEOs,
nurses," etc., I'm referring
to readers, not authors. That
is - wouldn't all these
people with an interest in
the topics that the list
ignores be upset? If the list
were about "best" journalism,
then subject matter would
perhaps be inconsequential -
perhaps through some quirk of
fate all of the most
technically accomplished,
diligently investigated, and
formally innovative
journalism has been done
while covering war and
politics. But since it's
about "top" journalism, to me
that implies that part of
what is being measured is the
cultural importance of a
given story and the impact on
the culture that that story
had. And, thus, the list's
failure to include journalism
about so many important
subject categories is one of
its flaws - and that has
nothing to do with the ethnicity
and gender of its authors or
whether or not any of them
were ever sitcom stars.

Huck

Uh ... whatever. You guys had
been on a roll lately, but I
think today's column was the
end of the line for that
particular groove. The only
thing more tedious and tired
than the media analyzing
itself is the new media
analyzing the old media
analyzing itself (and
inevitably criticizing them
for doing a shitty job of
it).

<messmeb@rockvax.rockefeller.edu>

Other stuff that's tedious:
letters that begin "Uh ...
whatever." Also, ones that
include the phrase, "The only
thing more tedious and tired
..."

Tired,

Huck