for 2 April 1999. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Huck,

That wasn't right what you
did to that li'l' feller. You
didn't even mention Gummo.
Great piece otherwise,
though. Developmentally
disabled folks are as human
as anyone else, and it does
them no service to paint them
in misty Hallmark moments
just to give moviegoers some
feel-good points.

Of course, you also left out
the easiest 'tard-analog
target: US state
legislatures.

<phils@lumisys.com>

Well, I haven't actually
gotten around to seeing
Gummo yet, or Crispin Glover's
What Is It? - which I've
read also features some
unsentimentalized performances
from developmentally disabled
people. But you know you
should never really count on
Suck for an authoritative
take on anything, don't you?
Most of us who write for it
are research disabled.

Huck

Let me be the first to say:
Har, har, har! Ain't a damn
thing funnier on this earth
than taking half of a joke
and beating it into last
week. Have you seen any of
Polly's recent work? Perhaps
you should try some of the
techniques that have worked
so well for her, such as
expressing more than one idea
in an article, or maybe
satire with some perceptible
point to it.

We're creatures of habit out
here, and once we're used to
reading something decent on a
daily basis, getting
something like this just
hurts real bad. (Although I
do have to give you props for
making fun of retards. It's
about time someone did
something about that dumb
taboo.)

Alesh Houdek
<alesh@apexmail.com>

Sorry, Alesh, my whole
strategy as a freelancer is
to limit ideas to one per
article. It's really the only
way you can make a go of it.

I've also found that if you
can keep the points as
imperceptible as possible,
it's a lot easier to recycle
them for future articles.

Huck

Yeah, I know, you guys make
fun of everybody equally. But
it's one thing when
"everybody" means cultural
icons, politicians, news
media types, or us - your
loyal readers, the young and
urban hipsters who think
we're subversive because we
read Suck at work. But
retarded people?!?! C'mon.

I haven't read something so
pointlessly mean-spirited and
humorless in a long time.
Whatever point you were
trying to make about the
movie industry was lost in
those bucktoothed drawings,
bald stereotypes, and
simplistic interpretations of
how developmentally disabled
people act and speak. Which
might be excusable for the
sake of humor, but the
article wasn't even funny.
What's wrong? Are you guys
running out of ideas?

LeeAnn Gjertsen
<lgjertsen@NUCO.com>

No.

Hiya,

I'm sure you're going to get
a deluge of similar letters,
and yes, I know I'm not being
very clever by pointing out
the obvious, but isn't the
droll title, Retarded
Son-in-Law, a tad redundant,
given the context?

Chris Watkins
<goop@onramp.net>

Yes.

Wow. That really, well,
sucked. Yep, you're out on
the cutting edge of humor
there, skewering a group of
people routinely skewered by
society.

I guess next week we can
expect a witty commentary on
the humorous aspects of
malnutrition - gosh, those
swollen bellies sure are
hilarious, aren't they?

Or perhaps that won't happen.
After all, you might actually
be capable of comprehending
that those bloated, starving
creatures are people, just
like you. It's readily
apparent you don't consider
people with mental
disabilities to be fellow
human beings.

I'm not going to make any
bogus threats about not
reading Suck in the future. I
like a lot of what you do. I
just couldn't, in good
conscience, let this kind of
crap pass without comment.

<hazel@bitstream.net>

Actually, I do consider
people with mental
disabilities to be fellow
human beings. What I was
hoping to satirize was the
way Hollywood narrowly
idealizes them. (This process
isn't limited to Hollywood,
either; in researching this
piece, I noticed that most of
the sites specializing in
developmentally disabled
people would choose as their
poster people those
fortunates who most resemble
"normal" people, as if their
highest accomplishments and
ultimate value were determined
by how closely they could
approximate the rest of us.)
Anyway, what seemed like a
good idea in the abstract
proved problematic in
execution for many different
reasons, most of which had
more to do with my
limitations as a humorist
than my limitations as a
human being, I would say.

Huck

Wow, that was rich - thanks.
About a year ago I had a
part-time job driving the
handicapped to their "school"
(ha ha !). I had to put up
with all their shit yet treat
them like they were
wonderful, and I had the
bonus of being paid minimum
wage (I kicked myself for
ever agreeing to the job).
Some of them had never seen a
toothbrush, and I suspect a
mirror, either. Fortunately,
I was required to get
hepatitis shots just for
driving them around (and I
didn't even have one of the
jobs actually working with
them). The really insane
thing about all this is that
institutions are not allowed
to sterilize these subhumans
because it's been decided
they have rights too (excuse
me while I go lose my
lunch!). There were two
clients (that's what I was
supposed to call them) who I
had to segregate on the van,
but no reason was given as to
why. I found out one day when
I was in a hurry and
accidentally let them sit
next to each other - I got
an X-rated view when I saw
them in the rearview mirror.
It made me wonder about the
carnage that went on after I
dropped them off at their
understaffed "homes." I don't
care what anyone says, these
things should be sterilized,
we don't need/want any more!
Anyway, see ya.

Peggy Smiley
<sp6hrhey@jayco.net>

Wow. I can only hope this is
your way of chastising me for
my insensitivity. If it is,
it worked.

Huck

OK, not to nit pick, but you
missed my favorite
non-retard-falling-in-love
flick, which also has the
burning of a 600-pound corpse
scene and Leonardo DiCaprio
before he sank his career:
What's Eating Gilbert Grape?

Plus, if you remember the TV
show LA Law, they had a big
retard played by Dr. Giggles.
When the show started to wane
in the late '80s, what did
they do with this character
who had shown how independent
and strong a retard could be?
That's right, they gave him a
love interest.

<JacobMrley@aol.com>

Wow, I can't believe I'm
talking with someone who saw
Dr. Giggles. That's pretty
much my favorite movie of the
'90s, even though I never
actually saw it. Just the
trailer, which played on TV
quite regularly in the weeks
before its release and
featured the immortal "The
Doctor Is Out ... of His
Mind" tagline, which was
enough to win my enduring
favor. But anyway, should I
rent it? Or should I not risk
destroying my fond memories
of it by actually seeing it?

Huck

Holy Holyfield, Batman!

What the fuck is up with the
Holyfield-Lewis fight? Lewis
clearly kicked the shit out
of him!

Rob Anderson
<andersonrob@home.com>

Well, you're not getting any
argument from us, or from
anybody else for that matter.
Although as a fellow Atlantic
City native I feel some
kinship to Judge Jean
Williams (whose financial
difficulties and bribery
allegations I trust you've
been following), I have to
say her excuse for giving the
fifth round to Holyfield -
that she had her back to
Lewis and thus couldn't see
his hits - is clearly
ridiculous. If you watch the
round on tape, they have an
angle from behind Lewis'
back, and when you look at
Holyfield's punchy face he's
got little cartoon parakeets
flying around his head. It's
obvious Lewis could have put
him down if he'd wanted to.

This is why all scoring
should be numeric: punch
counts, punches landed, etc.
If boxing can be decided by
such arbitrary judging, it
might as well be figure
skating.

Yr pal,

Bartel

Subject:

"Cleans everything, safe as
can be. Kind to your hands,
and fresh naturally. You'll
be using Murphy's all the
time, 'cause the dirt is
finished, but the finish is
fine!"

Your column brought back fond
memories of watching The Price Is
Right on snow days in fourth
grade. It also served as a
handy yet unobtrusive
reminder that it's time to
wax the floors.

Thanks!

Andrew Sullivan
<ajsullivan@att.com>

Then you'll LOVE next week's
column, which features a
handy yet unobtrusive
reminder that it's time to
get a divorce.

And (tie-in coming) if you
hadn't watched The Price Is
Right on snow days or sick
days, would you have ever
questioned the purpose of
school at all? Something
about those long days
spent on the couch
drinking ginger ale and
watching housewives guess the
prices of cans of soup used
to send me into one
existential crisis after
another. Why? Because I
didn't want to end up being a
housewife who knew the exact
price of a can of Dinty Moore
stew? Who knows? Perhaps if
it weren't for snow days and
similar breaks in our
workaday lives, we'd never
wake up and smell the shit
hitting the fan.

OK, it all fit together in my
head about five minutes ago.

Needing a snow day to ponder
the meaning of life while
washing my dust bunny-
infested wood floors,

Polly

Hit & Run

Subject: Harry-assed Knowles

Thanks for finally taking
some of the hot Austin air
out of this buffoon - the
man who held all the promise
of upending the regimented
Hollywood establishment with
a URL but instead stuffed his
child-molester face full of
free Eisner cakes and Geffen
snacks and started bragging
about Christina Ricci rubbing
up next to him and Lukas Haas
telling him he liked the
site. Poor Harry. Just
another ass-licker in
disguise.

chaz bartok usounds.com
<cz1679@yahoo.com>

In disguise as what? An
ass-licker? It seems to me Harry
has always been pretty much
out of the closet with his
Joel Siegel-ish, fan-boy
tendencies. If there's some
deeper unctuousness beneath
that unctuousness, well, that
makes my head hurt just
thinking about it.

Yr pal,

Bartel

Subject: Forbes - Capitalist
Fool

Generally, I prefer to avoid
cheap shots at people's
appearances (are you and I so
wonderfully photogenic?) and
I really try to avoid
"psychological profiles"
(dear God, what a concept) of
public figures - the least
of us is more complex than
any cheap derivative phrases
a drive-by biographer can
create. However, I'm tempted
to make an exception in Steve
Forbes' case. What is he
doing out there? And why is he
taken seriously?

A single glance at that
deer-in-the-headlights face
will tell you that he doesn't want
to be there. His flat tax
idea is pitifully self-
serving (i.e., in order
to avoid the horrible
difficulty of having to look
up your taxes in a tax table
you should cut my taxes in
half). Given the ...
enthusiastic ... lifestyle
his father led, his embrace
of the religious right is
embarrassing. What is he
doing there? Wouldn't some
therapy and - in dear
Woody's wise words - two
Prozacs and a hit over the
head with a croquet mallet be
a cheaper, easier, and much
more humane way for the poor
man to deal with his obvious
problems than working them
out in public? Cannot the
news media be persuaded, out
of simple human decency, to
ignore this man? Have you no
decency, sir, no decency at
all?

Will no one rid me of this
troublesome geek?

Oops. You see the effect the
man has. Can we maybe just
ignore him or send him some
hot chocolate and hope he'll
go away?

Alan Kornheiser
<askornheiser@prodigy.net>

Too late did it occur to me
that my cheap shot about
Steve's appearance might be
misconstrued as a reference
to his father's enthusiastic
lifestyle. By calling Forbes
a "tubby patrician
pantywaist," I was, of
course, referring to his own
boneless personal style. The
guy looks like he'd wither
like a hothouse flower if he
were ever exposed to direct
sunlight. What a disappointment
he must be to
the ghost of his butch father.

Yr pal,

Bartel

Damn, I love you people.
After spending the better
part of an evening reading
the trash disguised as film
critique that Knowles pushes
on otherwise innocent
fan boys, this week's Hit and
Run was like a drink of
chilled water on a hot, dry
day. Note to Harry: I hear
The New Yorker doesn't print
articles THAT AREN'T
PROOFREAD!!!!

Thanks,

Tom Berman
<nylar@pipeline.com>

Tom,

I think you're overlooking
the haikulike pith and
pared-down intelligence in a
Knowlesian phrase like, "A
sheer work of perfection
tempered with genius."

As opposed to a work of
perfection that's tempered
with ... imperfection?

Yr pal,

Bartel