[dear simpleton]

Feedback

February 17, 1999
New ones Monday through Friday

Reader mail:

Volume 27





[sam]

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

[virgin mary]

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

[kornheiser]

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

[brian]

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]
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