Thursday, 29 June 2006

Funny Books Threaten Local Sanity

IRVINE – A package left on the front stoop of an Irvine apartment this morning had local residents fearing for their sanity.  One of the occupants of the apartment characterized its contents as "four more funny books."

"She likes to call them that," said the other occupant, who asked he be referred to as "Morning Person."

"Morning Person?  He wakes up early three mornings in a row and now he's 'Morning Person'?" said the other occupant, who then requested she be called "Smell Good."

"Well, she does," Morning Person said.  "Writes perfume reviews and everything.  Always talking about 'notes' and having me stick my nose in ornate bottles.  But she's completely off-base about the funny books." 

The funny books in question contained materials Smell Good considered inappropriate for intelligent adults to consume. 

"I walked in the room this morning and I saw a picture of Captain America," she said, referring to Marvel Comics' walking jingoism.  "And he was standing over a dead body screaming 'Do you think this "A" [on his forehead] stands for France?'  Seriously, I mean, seriously."

Morning Person refused to recant.  "Alright, Captain America said that, and my stomach turned too.  But ten minutes later Hawkeye said he preferred to work alone because there was 'no showboating, no "you think this A stands for France," no overgrown kids getting in their battle armor drunk.'"

"What does that even mean?" Smell Good replied.  "I can't take it anymore.  Yesterday he tied a towel around his neck and insisted I call him 'The Multitasker' because he had 'the power' to watch television and surf the web simultaneously."

Local residents responded to the dispute stoically.

"We know what goes on in there," a neighbor said.  "Which is more than enough to know that we don't want to get involved."

Jun 29, 2006 8:39:23 PM | Books, Literature

2 Comments

John M. Burt

The Ultimate Marvel comics are a fun ride for as long as they last, although it seems to me that they're burning through, not just good characters and stories, but the genre itself (for instance, the mass-production of Giant Men), at quite a clip.

Yes, I agree, this post is very funny.

It strikes me that The U.S. is looking more like France all the time. Bush strikes me as just the sort of weasel who would order something like the sabotage of the _Rainbow Warrior_.

Posted by: John M. Burt | Saturday, 01 July 2006 at 06:48 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
An Unusual Footnote & A Few Words on Form In the article abstracted this evening, I found the following footnote. See, I'm a fan of footnotes. I sometimes read them before the rest of an article in order to determine whether it's worth my time. And I've read a lot of them. So imagine my surprise when I found this beauty at the tail end of the first: Megan Glick’s undergraduate thesis, ‘‘‘Written by a Ghost of Their Time’: Locating the Civil War in Elizabeth Stoddards’s The Morgesons,’’ is one of the first works to notice the extent to which Stoddard borrows structures of thought from the commercial world to explain the domestic one; her analysis of The Morgesons and Enlightenment definitions of contractual obligation intelligently observes the porous border between domesticity and law (Northwestern University, 2002). (726) An undergraduate thesis being cited in American Literature? Amazing. Were someone to cite mine, the shame would drive me underground. On another note, tonight I wrote a far shorter, more abstracty abstract. I'm no more satisfied with it than I was with its overlong cousin–or with the fact that both fail to grab the general reader. These two failures are not unrelated; both are the product of my poor form, and both will be rectified with a little practice.* Also, I'm appending a few general notes to the end of each abstract. Most of these will concern technique–from sentence-level wit to large argumentative structure–and are there because I belong to the writing-as-perpetual-apprenticeship school. The only way to become a better writer is to imitate better writers, to work their prose over and under until you know it inside and out, and then to appropriate their techniques into your prose. *As White Bear and N. Pepperell noted, a little practice can be a dangerous thing–but I don't think that logic holds here. (By "think" I obviously intend "hope.")
PREVIOUS POST
New Data Effortlessly Adhere to Old Certainties; or, Freud as Unreliable Narrator [Note: This post is composed of all natural American prose. Un-American "wits" with poetic souls must seek their solace elsewhere.] Brace yourself: Frederick Crew's Follies of the Wise opens with an anti-psychoanalytic screed. A couple of them, actually. It should come as no surprise that I'm sympathetic to his systematic dismantling of psychoanalytic claims to truth or continued relevance. (Note to Jonathan: I've already linked to that site.) What I find odd is that someone with the reputation I have has been asked to review this book for a decidedly pro-psychoanalytic journal. Does the editor believe that the narrative I share with Crews will reduce my review to the banal prattlings of the also unindoctrinated? Or does he believe Crews characteristic vehemence is something I'll rightly shy away from given the esteem the humanities afford psychoanalysis. What about neither? I'm undecided. But I must admit that reading Crews has been an enlightening stroll down memory lane. How so? I'm glad I asked: Way, way back in the long, long ago, the Little Womedievalist and I worked at a used bookstore directly off the LSU campus. That "directly" is no empty modifier, you see, because the close of each semester inaugurated The Great Influx of course materials the campus bookstore refused to repatriate. I gobbled up those discarded course books like canned-fruit on the eve of nuclear winter. No potentially useful pamphlet, tome or pamphlet-quality tome escaped my clutches. I read them all. And I did so with a criminally uncritical eye. I took it all at its face as only a 20 year old, budding intellectual can. The best days of my life–stop giggling, I mean it–I spent in cornershop cafés reading and re-reading Freud and Lacan while the Little Womedievalist studied Sanskrit. It was a moment of remarkable freedom, both economically and intellectually. We were working in a used bookstore, spending our money on books and coffee, and preparing to go to our respective graduate institutions with the enthusiastic naïveté of prospective graduate students. On the days we didn't work, we would drive to a deserted coffee hut, hunker down and spend seven or eight eager hours devouring the material we thought we'd have to master. Life was good. We had the shakes but our faith remained intact. Mine did, at least. The Little Womedievalist had a healthy skepticism about psychoanalytic truth claims from the get-go. (Do you realize how many subsequent arguments I could win were she unable to play that card?) The point being: Crews is right. My infatuation with Freud resembles honest intellectual work as much as my marriage resembles my first infatuation. I possessed a shallow but empowering knowledge, what Crews calls "instant depth." Psychoanalytic thinkers imagine bland positivism the only alternative to psychoanalysis, but I question their familiarity with those alternatives. For that matter, I question my own. But I don't consider my ignorance convincing proof of that argument. I was duped, plain and simple, and reading Crews reminds me of the pain accompanying...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments