for 8 October 1999. Updated every WEEKDAY.
|
|
Hit & Run Well done BarTel! We all knew this would be coming quickly, a defense of the brand of bottomless irony practiced at Suck. But then it's not all irony there at Suck, contrary to public opinion, and Purdy's book is not all anti-irony, if you're to be believed. That was a fair and interesting interview. Tom Castle <Tom@asizip.com> But public opinion is what matters. It's not like we consciously asked to become the Blue Meanies of irony, but we've accepted our responsibility — unlike Purdy, who is uniquely positioned to become the Hillary the Boob of sincerity but insists on not being typecast. Yr pal, BarTel  I believe the "it's turtles all the way down" story comes to us originally from Bertrand Russell rather than Stephen Hawking, although the latter may be getting cosmological insights from his own "old lady." And BarTel d'Arcy, while he does, indeed, appear in Ulysses, figures more prominently in Joyce's short story "The Dead." Mr. D'Arcy is a tenor, and his plaintive rendition of "The Lass of Aughrim" evokes overpowering memories in Gretta Conroy. It is a remarkable, irony-free passage, one I am sure Habbakuk Purdy would enjoy. Reynolds Atkins <ratkins@loralorion.com> But it's in Ulysses that we learn the crucial facts that Bartell [actual spelling] d'Arcy has a waxed-up moustache and imagines himself to be some kind of lothario, character details that the great Frank Patterson ran with when he portrayed the singer in John Huston's movie The Dead. Sadly, Patterson now does ghastly duets with the dead, co-starring the wax-cylinder voice of John McCormack. It's so ironic! Yr pal, BarTel Subject: Because you sent it to me on consecutive days, I'll rip him on consecutive, etc. It is beyond funny to read an interview debating what type of intellectual a person might be, when the alleged "intellectual" in question — Mr. Purdy — has appeared in a point/counterpoint in a magazine (Slate) that he has never read. Nothing could more firmly establish that, when Mr. Purdy's time is up, he will be conducted (despite protestations in this life) to the pantheonic "pundit grid" mentioned during your interview. McLaughlin, Donaldson, and Roberts will be his companions in eternity, not Perkins, Parker, and McCluhan. Hmmm ... What did they say at Exeter about this? Or is there a road-kill joke I can insert here to appear folksy? Best wishes, Richard Piedmonte <humanmeal@earthlink.net> The real oddity is that the author claims he doesn't want to join the pundit grid. That's simply perverse. Who wouldn't want to get paid for shouting a set of talking points on television? Yr pal, BarTel Subject: Literacy? Is this for real? Whew! I just stumbled into this by accident after going to the fourth level of the pulldown list of Favorites in Win98. No wonder it is being said by more and more citizens in our country, USA, that we are in a state of moral decline, physically, intellectually, and religiously! Shame on you folks, whatever your rationale may be for putting that kind of junk on the Net! Anthony Correia <acorreia@earthlink.net> We're only on the fourth level of the Favorites list? Thanks for the heads up! the Sucksters La Cage Match Aux Folles I can forgive clichés ("permanent hammerlock on pop culture," "wrest the championship belt from those box-office titans") so bad that they smack of TV Guide headline tags. I can forgive puns ("Tae Boasters," "GLAADiators") so bad that I hearken back to Winona Ryder's internal monologs in Heathers. These bespeak lazy writing, but not necessarily an ignorance of the subject at hand. However, any beer-swilling, trailer- park-dwelling wrestling fan would have taken exception with your twice referring to WCW as "the WCW." World Championship Wrestling should not have been preceded by the article "the," unless of course you were using it in a faux-naive David Letterman-esque manner (e.g., "Say, kids, do you like the rock-and-roll?"). And I doubt you were, since you also referred to the World Wrestling Federation as the "World Wrestling Foundation," which sounds like some odd charity. <not_kornheiser@hotmail.com> Your critique would have been stronger had you condemned what you forgive and forgiven what you condemn. But thanks for the close read. And nice email address. Huck After a hard day philosophizing, René Descartes is in his favorite boîte drinking brandy and discussing the weather. The bartender asks him if he'd like another drink. He says, "I think, not." He disappears. I can only exist if you believe in me. Alan Kornheiser <askornheiser@prodigy.net> We believe in you! We believe in love! We believe in Santa Claus! We believe in magic! Gullible, the Sucksters Hit & Run When I first heard this story, I was an undergraduate at Harvard in 1971. In that version, the great philosopher and theorist William James had just given a lecture on the universe when the old lady gave him the real explanation (turtles). I don't think Stephen Hawking was on anyone's radar in 1971. I suppose most folks today (even Suck readers) would have no idea who William James was, so the identity of the lecturer had to be changed. whbarrett <whbarrett@email.msn.com> Oh, stick a sock in that "Most folks today would have no idea" business, Mr. Harvard. As it happens, Hawking himself attributes the story to Bertrand Russell, who in turn probably said it happened to Henri Bergson. This is what passes for urban myth in the Ivy League. But then, maybe that was your point. Next question: Although we didn't actually go to Ivy League schools, could you pull some strings to get us admitted to the Old Boy Network? As mascots or something? Yr pal, BarTel But Love Story is an awful, awful movie! Shouldn't somebody tell him this? Drew Bell <droob@earthlink.net> It's the thought that counts. I find his standing up to the hecklers commendable, though of course, it would have been better if he'd been standing up for Danger: Diabolik or an Andy Hardy classic. Yr pal, BarTel Sucksters, Last week I bought For Common Things and, like you, was perplexed by how the subtitle and the contents of the book are remarkably different. However, in defense of the young Purdy, Daniel Goldhagen, author of Hitler's Willing Executioners which was also published by Knopf, faced a similar problem. In the jacket description of the book, a too enthusiastic editor described the book as the first to condemn ordinary Germans. Hardly, but it may be the last. Goldhagen, on the tour of the book, was chastised for the description — which he, like Purdy, lamely explained. It seems that the marketing department of Knopf, ever eager to sell intellectual, gritty books as if they were bestsellers, seems to either not actually read the books or is satisfied by the 25-words-or-less description that the sophomore-at-Fordham intern has provided. As Always, The Samerri <crumb@ix.netcom.com> Well it probably wasn't the first. I saw a circa-1945 newsreel on Turner Classic Movies where the point was basically, "Now that we've beaten the Germans, let's annihilate them before they can do it again — and don't kid yourselves, they will." But really, if everybody were as strict as you, the slogan for Jakob the Liar would have to read, "The Stand-Up-and-Cheer Holocaust comedy of [the second half of] the year!" Yr pal, BarTel Admittedly, I've never seen the script. All I've heard about it is from The Howard Show, and I don't get the "Shoah business" reference at the end. But from what I can tell, all you're trying to say about this movie is that it's not that bad and it's too easy to make fun of. But you've only read the script. How can you say that Shearer's "long run of laughter" at the movie is unjust? You've not even seen it! Darren Hertell <darren@yack.com> PS Big fan, big fan. I'm not so sure Harry Shearer has seen it, given that he is very cagey about giving any actual details about the movie and always falls back on the same joke — "Can you believe they made a movie about a clown in a concentration camp?" Well, yes, we can believe it, and we can even believe that movie could be a heartwarming Oscar magnet. The point is, the joke's over. It's time to stop picking on Jerry Lewis. Yr pal, BarTel My first reaction on reading your 23 September quickie on the slayings of churchgoers was what, for want of a better term, I'll call abject horror. It brought to mind some poor, 17-year-old schmuck who stood up to be part of a magic act, only to find himself actually skewered when they put him into the box. As horrifying as that image was, I did find some small solace in this: Psychologists tell us (and we believe every word!) that spree killers go on their rampages because they're starved for attention and that, in a strange way, going out to off a few folks in a Quikie-Mart is the best way to get it. How frustrating must it have been for Ashbrook, who in his last desperate play for some air time, had trouble even convincing people that anything real was taking place? Samuel Leibowitz <sleibowitz@btcwcu.org> Serves the bastard right. Considering how many ways there are to get attention — kidnapping supermodels and then pretending to rescue them, coming forward as George W.'s coke buddy from way back when, destroying New York and Paris and London with a death ray — spree killing shows a pretty stunted imagination. Yr pal, BarTel |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
   |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |  |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |   | |||||||||||||||||||
![[Tim Cavanaugh]](/fish/staff/images/tim.gif)
![[the fixin'
pixie... ]](/fish/staff/images/emily.gif)
![[Ian
Connelly]](/fish/staff/images/ian.gif){kind=small}
![[Copy Edit]](/fish/staff/images/copyeditors.gif){kind=small}
![[Phillip Bailey]](/fish/staff/images/phil.gif){kind=small}
![[yes, it's
a plunger. i'll l
eave the rest up to your imagination ... ]](/fish/staff/images/erin.gif){kind=small}
![[Brian
Forsyth, " we're just spanning time "]](/fish/staff/images/brian.gif)