Feedback
February 17, 1999
New ones Monday through Friday
Reader mail:
Volume 27
A Letter From Sam Pratt
|
Dear simpleton,
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE KORNHEISER LETTERS?
A Simpleton mailbag without a Kornheiser letter
is like raisins without wrinkles, sleighbells
without tinkles, Christmas cookies without sprinkles.
Oops, wrong season.
--S.
|
|
Dear Readers,
This is a letter from Sam Pratt. Sam is the prodigiously gifted workhorse behind
The Finger. The Finger is the one outside web
magazine I like so much I wrote for it absolutely free!
Even if I hadn't written for The Finger, I'd have a high opinion of Sam, because he's
such a smart guy.
Sam has a
view of Star Trek that I feel is too extreme (he
loathes
all manifestations of the show, Kirk's original crew included), but still significant.
Observe Sam's observation about Star Trek fans:
... the majority resort to camp to justify their
embarrassing fixation. What's unfathomable is that anyone still finds
anything even remotely funny in shopworn jokes about Kirk's libido,
Scotty's dilithium crystals, or McCoy's arched eyebrow. Anyone, that
is, who doesn't also think that Elvis impersonators and RuPaul are
somehow novel and naughty.
This is a strong point. Fans of the show should proudly state their belief that
the original Kirk Star Trek was some
of the finest dramatic television ever, rather than dismissing their fan interests with
nervous laughter. Too bad a guy who hates the show has to point out this obvious
failing.
Yeah, that Sam is one smart cookie. That's why I urge one and all to enjoy
The Finger as often as possible.
New Kornheiser mail can be found below.
yr pal,
Tim
|
We Hate You, simpleton (continued)
|
Dear simpleton,
After Simpleton's demise, I was sure I wouldn't be able to handle mornings
any more. How could I, without the jokes, stupid cartoons and pull-down
joke menus. Eventually, I managed. I actually started to work, and soon
Simnpleton faded from memory.
But then you brought it back, albeit occasionally, and I once again tuned
in. However, as a lifetime subscriber, I feel the need to register a
complaint. Call it selfish. Call it unappreciative. Call it an addiction.
You see, when you write at the bottom, tomorrow more Reader Mail, or
somesuch, I _expect_ it to be there. Tomorrow. So when Monday came and went
and no Reader Mail showed up, I was pissed, to say the least. Then today
(1/26), I tune in with coffee in hand, only to see the same Tim Goes to the
Movies page. Needless to say, I was disappointed.
The nearest comparison I can make is to the striking sports. You leave,
then you come back. I come back as a loyal fan. Then you leave again.
Come on, either bring it back, or let it die. I hope you at least have a
good excuse, like a blackout in the Bay area.
Numero Uno fan,
Tony
afloreno@chemexpo.com
|
|
Dear Tony,
Your observations are very helpful in our efforts to stay on track. Nor can I blame
you for not welcoming another view of the
Tim Goes to the Movies issue, which
I freely admit was pretty bad. Rest assured that I'm doing my utmost to keep producing
the same
high-quality, low-concept simpleton you've come to enjoy. Since the date of your
letter, we've been back on a daily schedule, which I hope to maintain for as long
as possible. Again, I'll admit that some recent daily simpletons have been
disappointing, but I think I'm
not flattering myself in saying that some have been pretty good. Thank you for your
patience, and I look forward to entertaining you for years to come.
Sincerely,
Tim
|
February 8: Ars Longa Est
|
Dear simpleton,
Contrary to what they said about you at [Tor Hyams's Welcome To My Homepage],
I do like your schtick, and visit regularly. So I was
really disappointed in your ripoff of Borges' story
"Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" in the Feb. 8
column. Just because there is a coy tone of ironic
self-reference and a chain of links leading sooner or
later to the original doesn't mean that you can get away
with appropriating your betters' works. At least you
could have tossed him a footnote.
gcorbett@cspi.com
|
|
Dear gcorbett,
Well, one man's ripoff is another's tribute. The
article in Soundbitten, in
which I truly did redo the Borges story, contained an appropriate reference. I didn't
see any reason for it in the February 8 issue, but I'm happy to see people are out
there being vigilant on behalf of the Argentine genius.
I'm also impressed that you admit to reading Tor's Homepage. Cool-site-review sites are
so 1996.
Sincerely,
Tim
|
|
Dear simpleton,
OK, it's funny. Hell, it's very funny. But then, art is funny. Have you
seen the Pollack show at MOMA?
First of all, the show is an incredible draw. On a dreary midweek
afternoon in January, months after the show opened and the tourists had,
one would think, gone home, the lines are long. Very long. Major
argument for becoming a member of MOMA, and don't they know it.
Never mind. I'm not a member but I sleep with one, so I slip in the
short line. You go in the long way. The show is worth it. Smack dab in
the middle are the drip paintings, and nothing more beautiful has ever
been seen. Even the usual suspects who normally would be whining that
their kid could do better are in stunned silence. This is seriously
wonderful art. Which brings us to the point: Where did it come from?
The show is meticulous in this regard. It shows Pollack's earlier work;
more of it, in fact, than one would need to see. You see competent
second rate rehashes of better art--Picasso, Miro, Matisse, even van
Gogh and Gaughan of all people. You see an artist very slowly struggling
to find something of his own to say. You see him discovering that
something else. And then, a miracle happens.
That "something of his own" he had to so slowly find is combined with a
new style of painting. He's still not a very interesting painter; he
still hasn't much to say; and his new technique really isn't very
subtle. Yet the combination is incredible.
The great art ends after about 5 years. People blame it on the booze or
depression or both, but the fact is he ran out of things to say that
could be said in that way...he really wasn't all that much of an artist.
Not really. And then he died, and probably better to burn than to
sputter.
But those five or so years! Little he did before or after prepares you
for them. Incredible.
I have a theory. It is my carefully considered scientific belief that
one day, about 1942 or so, God tapped Jackson Pollack on the shoulder.
And then, some years later, God went away. No other explanation fits the
facts.
Think what it must have been like for Pollack. He wasn't an ignorant
man, and he knew his art and art history. He surely knew perfectly well
how wonderful what he suddenly produced was, and how it shone above what
he did before...and what he did after. What must it have been to live
during the days when God was on your shoulder...and what must it have
been to live when God went away.
Light a candle (or a cigarette) for his soul in front of a painting of
the blessed Virgin, and ask yourself if you really would like it if God
touched you, however briefly, on the shoulder.
Alan Kornheiser
ASKORNHEISER@prodigy.net
|
|
Dear Alan,
I won't cheapen your glowing letter with a one-off response.
But I have been fascinated by the apprentice work of people who go on to invent
whole new styles of art. I first noticed this in high school, when I realized a friend of mine,
who was every inch a shlub like me, could paint like Max Beckmann. I figured from
there he had nowhere to go but into Braquean innovation, but as it turned out he
ended up making grilled cheese sandwiches to sell at Dead shows. Which in its way was
a whole new style of art.
Sincerely,
Tim
|
February 5: The West Pembroke HobNob
|
Dear simpleton:
Quite an exceptional piece your Hob-Nob story.
I was kind of surprised by the content. The humor was kind of crude and
that was kind of refreshing but I would guess that you will receive many
unfavorable emails.
Is this a one-off of sorts or do you plan to re-use this recipe for
low-brow high-jinks?
yr stout-livered pal,
H'
henry@novomedia.com
|
|
Dear Henry,
As it turns out, yours was the only response I got on that thing. Thinking that this
was one of simpleton's best efforts in a long time, I had been expecting
voluminous mail. But it never came. The fact that I can't seem to tell
which ones are good probably explains all the letters in today's column.
yr pal,
Tim
|
Send word to simpleton
Previously in simpleton:
February 16, 1999: The Booze Liberation Page
Hemping for a drink
February 15, 1999: George X
Our First President not fully appreciated
February 12, 1999: Love from Unkie
Valentine's Day drivel
February 10, 1999: Dear simpleton
Reader mail: Volume 26
February 9, 1999: The Tragedy of Macbeth
Act II
February 8, 1999: Ars Longa Est
Mechanical reproduction through the ages
February 5, 1999: The West Pembroke Hobnob
An Attitude for Snootstown's best
A century of simpletons in the simpleton archive.
Find an almost-total listing of Tim's outside works in The Compleat Simpleton.
Wankers of Arabia
|
New readers are invited to join the simpleton mailing list announcement of new features
and attractions, along with value-added commentary from the simpleton staff, which is
not available in stores!
To get on the simpletonians mailing list:
1) Send email to majordomo@freedonia.com
2) Write the following message (and nothing else) in the body of your email:
subscribe simpletonians
3) Press "Send" on your email.
Now you are subscribed to the simpletonians mailing list. If you have trouble following
these instructions, email me and
I'll add you to the list.
|
Tomorrow:
More found objects
http://www.simpleton.com
|
|