for 18 August 1999. Updated every WEEKDAY.

The Tuesday, 3 August 1999,
piece was witty, coherent,
and well researched; tossing
in the neechee made it very
rich. Thanks for articulating
your sharp observations.

Our constant rediscovery and
repackaging of decades past
reminds me of one of Jimi's
feedback loops: a sound
amplified and reamplified in
a circuit loses with every
amplification some of its
depth and finally becomes a
single discordant tone
whanging away at the senses.
A retrospective feedback loop
takes ever-shortening spans
of time into account, so that
by 2005 we undoubtedly will
be recounting with wistful
documentaries the bygone days
of 2003.

Ah well, it was your writing,
not mine, that gave me
occasion to drop you this
note and say, "Well done,
Cloud!"

Well done, Cloud!

Thanks for your kind words.
But by 2005, nostalgia is
going to be simultaneous with
the present. Remember what
right now used to be like?

The C. of U.

"For those of you who haven't
suffered through Friedrich
Nietzsche's The Birth of
Tragedy, here's the basic
outline: Dionysian = Jimi
playing 'The Star-Spangled
Banner' and setting his
guitar on fire; Apollonian =
Wyclef Jean attempting the
same trick and not being able
to light the damn thing."

Where the fuck do you get off
saying something like this?
Name-dropping garnished with
plausible deniability:
Readers interpret the word
suffer as literal or
facetious depending on their
dispositions. Much as I tire
of defending your betters
from being painted by your
endlessly wide brush of smug
disdain (who do you not scoff
at, may I ask — the silly
indie rockers and wired-
culture critics listed in
"The Shit"?). I would deign
to point out that the
Dionysian-Apollonian duality
is not ever literally defined
in the book, nor does
Nietzsche attempt to. Rather,
he uses these flexible
categories as leverage for
the analysis of (you guessed
it) tragedy. This is an
awkward method that in the
hands of a lesser mind would
read something like starting
from a failed premise and
thrashing around in the dark,
but I assure you that the
young Nietzsche is no such
thinker. The explication of
myth found in this book is
brilliant. The symbolic
dream-image! The shield
against intolerable
knowledge! Compare to this
the banality of something
like the Golden Bough, where
mythology is "rationalized."
For God's sake, go back and
read it again. I would go on
to flame you for your
nickname and point out the
influence of Indian Buddhism
on Nietzsche's early
thinking, but, really, is
there any point? All I ask of
you people is to have some
discretion! I'll stop short
of asking for respect.

<cmaan@julian.uwo.ca>

Like Dostoyevsky said, "It is
necessary to suffer and to be
redeemed by suffering." Or
was that Napalm Death?
Remember, the only thing
worse than being painted by
an endlessly wide brush of
smug disdain is being painted
by a brush of smug disdain
that's not quite wide enough.

Thanks for writing,

The C. of U.

I accidentally typed in the
word suck (it's one of my
favorite words) and I got
this! Really Cool!

This Internet thing is blowing
my little head away!

Sorry to hear that. The little
head is especially fragile
and irreplaceable; if you're
going to be doing much
Internet stuff, please
protect it. It's for your own
good.

The C. of U.

Filler

Polly,

You were so kind to men in
this last Filler — what
gives? Did you just turn 30,
or are the '90s winding down,
or did all that urban
hipsterette dick chopping
just strike you as
cliché suddenly? Being
that I'm a man, I guess you
got me to blink over here,
and I can't help but wonder
if there isn't a more cynical
reason as to why you're
throwing this curveball.

Here's my pet (read: stupid,
lame) theory: Once you get to
"bitter," the next step is
"not giving a fuck" (NGOF).
But unfortunately, NGOF is
infected with "giving a fuck"
(GOF), because deep down
inside you really want to
make sure everyone knows
you're NGOF. Eventually,
you're really NGOF. But if
you're really NGOF, then why
are you even here, yanno? The
thrill of putting your
emotional dick on the table
(since "we're" male-oriented
today) to potentially get
chopped off is no longer
appealing, but if it's not
doing anything, why is it
there? Finally, you get to a
point where you learn to be
happy without getting
off.

Ahem ...

Maybe you're warming up to the
idea of being happy and
attached. Figuratively
speaking, of course. Well,
that's my optimistic read on
you. But I'm putting all my
chips on the idea that this
is some kind of new trend
about how Gen-X chix are
supposed to act now. Herd
them sheep!

You're so insensitive.

GP

PS Please thank Terry for
giving you pupils — it's
the little things that
matter. You can keep my
money.

Bitterness towards men arises
out of utter faith in men,
followed by disillusionment.
However, if you're a
complicated and moderately
self-aware person, you
inevitably end up failing in
the same ways that you
condemn others for failing,
thus you're left with no
option but to throw out the
bitterness with the bath
water. Bitterness is an
oversimplified reaction
anyway, common among radicals
who wish to keep things neat
and orderly by ignoring all
inconvenient data.

The women are doing all the
dumping in last week's Filler
partially because women are
better at spinning their
asshole-ish behavior in
numerous complicated ways in
order to perpetually avoid
taking any blame. I should
know.

But don't think for a second
that I dislike men any less.
Oh God, we can't have you
thinking that!

The whole concept of sticking
out your emotional dick and
getting it ripped off is a
very male fear. Women care
less about loss of face that
way. Rejection, what's that?
Who cares? I guess women know
it could come down to their
big feet or their unladylike
demeanor with most men,
whereas men fear that
rejection could mean they're
utterly rejectable all the
way around. And they're
right. Besides, if you don't
put your emotional dick on
the table, how else will we
know how big it is before we
decide whether to use it or
not?

Overgeneralizing, emotional
dick,

Polly

Brilliant. I'd say more but it
would be extraneous.

Lindsay H. Cook
<aeons@cstone.net>

Unearned flattery is never
extraneous, unless it's
directed at someone other
than me.

E. L. Skinner

Dear E. L. Skinner:

I want you to know that we at
Nature resemble your remarks,
and wish you to cease this
shameless exposure of the
truth. What will the people
think?

Phillip LoFaso
Vice President of Marketing
The Nature Publishing Group
<lofaso@natureny.com>

PS Thanks for the PR. I'll
take it any way I can get it.
Probably get us a few new
subs. Why not a link to our
site?!

What we're really angling for
is a citation of our very own
in the journal Nature. Think
you can swing "according to
Suck.com" in the next ish? We
can get it past the
spellcheckers, if you handle
the editors.

Yours according to the
scientific method,

E. L. Skinner

The armed forces are not
planning.

Robert Ellis
<rellis@arcmail.com>

Robert,

I thought this was one of the
more disturbing emails I've
received recently. Then I
realized it was just a
persnickety correction of my
own bad grammar. I hate that.

E. L. Skinner

Subject: Your nature piece ...

... is absolutely wonderful,
and I invite you to write a
1,000-word commentary for
Nature Biotechnology in much
the same vein and addressing
the all-too-cozy relationship
between biotech companies and
their friends in the powerful
press.

Harvey Bialy, PhD
Editor at Large
Nature Biotechnology
<h.bialy@natureny.com>

Hi, Harvey.

Sorry it's taken us so long to
get back to you. We were
involved in some top-secret
clinical trials of a new drug
designed to make the press
even more powerful,
manipulative, and
self-serving.

As you may know, it's very
hard to be taken seriously
— or serially, for that
matter — with a name like
Suck.com. We'd hate to
besmirch the fine name of
Nature anymore than we
already have.

Besides, we don't know
anything about all-too-cozy
relationships with biotech
companies. Of course, we're
willing to try anything once.
What are you wearing?

E. L. Skinner

The Shit

"Gary's Trajectory," A Wanderer in the Perfect City, Lawrence Weschler, Hungry Mind Press, 1998 The Parallax View, Alan J. Pakula, Paramount Pictures DVD, 1974 Rogues to Riches: The Trouble with Wall Street, Murray Teigh Bloom, Putnam,1971 Actual Air, David Berman, Open City Books, 1999 Tibor Kalman: Perverse Optimist, Peter Hall and Michael Bierut, editors, Princeton Architectural Press, 1998 Canary-wing parrots, Dolores Street, San Francisco Super Shitty to the Max, Hellacopters, Man's Ruin Records, 1998 Request magazine (any issue after June 1999) On the Road to Vietnam, Bob Hope, Cadet 4046 vinyl, 1964 The Flying Ballerina, Drums and Tuba, TEC Tones, 1998 Dino, Nick Tosches, Delta Alpha Publishing, 1999 The Soft Bulletin, The Flaming Lips, WEA/Warner Brothers, 1999 Big Red soda