Slashdot Mirror
Planet Simpson
Perhaps in keeping with the counter-cultural, DIY, anti-authoritarian attitude of The Simpsons itself, the book is decidedly unauthorized, the back cover stating for the record that it was "not prepared, licensed, approved or endorsed by any entity involved in creating or producing The Simpsons." In fact, although episodes are referred to by their official production codes (e.g., 9F11, or "Selma's Choice"), Matt Groening and others associated with the show are quoted only second-hand, through reprinted excerpts of old interviews.
Illustrating clearly that this is his personal take on The Simpsons, Turner opens the book with a moment in time: Thursday, January 21, 1993 at around 8:20 p.m. EST in a campus pub called Alfie's at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. There, in a room crowded with people in various stages of inebriation, the author watches Act 3 of Episode 9F11 ("Selma's Choice") of The Simpsons, and relates how the room explodes into laughter after a series of jokes about Duff Beer and its effects (e.g., beer goggles). I don't even remember this episode, but for the author and his friends it was a moment to be remembered. The point is that The Simpsons is full of such "moments," and these, reflective of society and recited ad infinitum by fans, help us see not only the way the series has shaped our world, but the way our world has shaped the series.
Off On a Rant
The book bills itself as "the first trade book to take a look at The Simpsons as a microcosm of the Western culture that it has both influenced and reflected." But author Chris Turner never goes so far as to establish a cause-effect relationship between The Simpsons and our world. In the author's own words: "...this is, in the end, my version of The Simpsons. The show's canvas is far too broad, and the culture it reflects far too diverse and fragmented, for me or anyone else to be able to offer a completely comprehensive or definitive analysis." Rather, he places the two side-by-side and views each through the mirror of the other, usually without taking his theses too far.
There are a few moments, though, where the narrative approaches the point of hyperbole -- for example, when Turner states that The Simpsons "...was the Beatles and the Stones. It was Elvis and Chuck Berry. It was that big, that unprecedented, and that important" or that "If there is a common cultural currency, it's got Homer Simpson's picture on it." Sometimes this hyperbole gets him into a bit of a pickle, as when he refers to episode 1F13 "Deep Space Homer" as "second to none", and on the same page places it second to 9F15 "Last Exit to Springfield." This has naught to do with inaccuracy, however, and everything to do with the fact that sometimes the author's love for the show sometimes clouds his vision in tints of rose. He is, at times, a sort of Anti-Comic Book Guy, chanting "Best. Episode. Ever." as he recalls his favorite moments. Is The Simpsons truly the glue that holds postmodern society together? Or is it just one brand on the shelf (albeit perhaps the best-selling brand)? Perhaps it depends on how big a fan you are; clearly, the author is a big fan.
In other places, Turner's points are a little harder to swallow, particularly in the chapters which focus on specific characters and what they represent. I can easily buy that Homer Simpson can be compared to the nature of mainstream America, with "its hopes and dreams and insatiable appetite," but I have a harder time grasping how Bart Simpson is evocative of the style and ethos of the punk rock movement's mainstreaming. Sometimes a brat is just a brat. And does Lisa Simpson truly represent the re-emergence of progressive activism in the West, or is she just a younger sister who's smarter and nicer than her brother? Later, the author (correctly) attributes the use of the phrase "I, for one, welcome our new [fill-in-the-blank] overlords" to The Simpsons, but also claims that the use of *tumbleweed blows by* on sites like Metafilter and Slashdot can be traced to The Simpsons. This latter I have a little trouble buying at face value, and I think it's overreaching a tad.
The author also has a habit of unapologetically spiralling off into a tangential rant, a la Dennis Miller. The entire book is written in this style, with point A being related to point B suddenly being compared to point Z, and the author is quite aware of it: one of the subheads in Chapter 2 is titled "A Short, Frank Discussion (Actually More Like a Longish Rambling Examination) of Homer's Extraordinary Id." In most places, this style works for the book; in others, it nearly breaks the narrative as we sputter over a side point for a few pages.
For example, in Chapter 2, "Homer's Odyssey," there's a two-page aside where the author talks about Aunty Goethe's Peachy-Mango Love Pain juice, Space Jam, Edward Munch, PBS Documentaries and several other seemingly unrelated matters. Ultimately his point about American society is clear, but it gets a little thick toward the middle, and hard to see the forest for the trees. At another point in the same chapter, a discussion of Springfield's hysterical masses turns into five-and-a-half pages devoted to the Y2K bug, getting back to The Simpsons just in time for the chapter to end. Relevant? Perhaps, but I found myself at one point wanting more Simpsons and less substance.
Similar tangents appear throughout the book, each encompassing between several paragraphs and several pages, and covering topics such as: Kurt Cobain, Quentin Tarantino, Nike, The Onion, Radiohead, William Gibson, Bowling For Columbine, John Lennon, the WELL, Tuvalu, Cyberjaya, a website named "oo," a Portuguese bus ride, Lemonwheel, The Truman Show, and Wilco's song "Misunderstood." And perhaps, viewed all together like that, those references do make a certain sort of sense as a representation of the past 15 years, but individually they occasionally seem jarring.
Mmmmm, Pizza
The book reads, at times, like a collection of essays rather than a continuous narrative. Turner at one point discusses the show's distinctive animation style, which mixes cartoonishness and realism, as follows: "(Homer) falls like a cartoon, but he lands like a real person." This book feels like that, opening in a much more fannish, cartoonish fashion and ending in a way that's a bit more thick and scholarly. The unevenness isn't ruinous, though. Consider a pizza with a few lumps and bubbles in the dough, and maybe all the pepperoni is off to one side and there's way too many mushrooms in the middle. It's still a tasty pizza, and everyone can probably find a slice they'll enjoy.
Chapter 1, "The Life & Times of The Simpsons, serves as an introduction to both the book and the series. It first retells the series' creation myth -- that it was dreamed up in 1987 by then 33-year old Groening in about 15 minutes, so he wouldn't lose the rights to Life is Hell -- before moving on to other key points, such as its April 19, 1987 debut as a sort of Anti-Cosby Show, and its first full episode on Sunday, Dec. 17, 1989 (The Christmas Special). It discusses how the show built up its creative team of writers and voice actors, the rise (and fall) of Bart-Mania in 1989-1990, and its ascent to its "Golden Age" in the mid 1990s before reaching the current "Long Plateau."
The author attributes this rise (and ensuing gentle decline) to the show's shift from typical cartoonishness into a tendency to "riff" on real-world events, reflecting society and culture in a way that audiences could relate to. "Entertain and subvert," said Groening on several occasions about the show's mission, unabashedly showing us cartoon versions of our real world's "corrupt authorities, clueless leaders and rapacious businessmen" that we could not only laugh at, but understand. "It's funny because it's true," goes the saying.
The next five chapters are, at least in name, focused on specific characters. Chapter 2, "Homer's Odyssey," and Chapter 3, "Bart Simpson, Punk Icon," are the most focused on their particular topics, with the others tending to sprawl a bit more, bringing in related minor characters and more tangents.
For example, Chapter 4, "Citizen Burns," touches not only on how Monty Burns represents corporate America (reflected through a parody of Citizen Kane), but also mentions Pimple-faced Kid, Sarcastic Middle-Aged Man, Lindsay Naegle, Jack Larson, Mayor Quimby and Chief Wiggum. Chapter 5, "Lisa Lionheart," discusses not only Lisa's many faces -- Genius, Little Kid, Activist -- but goes off on several tangents about Activism in general, Culture Jamming and Politics. Chapter 6, "Marge Knows Best," is perhaps the greatest misnomer in the book. While it does present Marge as the moral center of a show that repeatedly and blatantly denies the presence of a moral center, large sections cover the Flanders family (with special attention to Ned's "unbearable piousness"), battles with the Catholic Church and suicide-prevention groups, Abe Simpson and Homer's mom. The material is all related, but I felt Marge got a little shorted. And no mention of Maggie anywhere!
The last five chapters take a different spin, focusing not on specific characters and their relation to society, but on societal events and their relation to The Simpsons.
Chapter 7, "The Simpsons in Cyberspace," documents appearances of the Internet on The Simpsons (and vice versa) as the Internet rose from nothingness to ubiquity. It discusses "Freeze Frame Fun" (the quick jokes you can only catch if you tape and play back the show in slow-motion), alt.tv.simpsons and The Simpsons Archive (www.snpp.com), which the author cites as one of his major resources used in the writing of the book. This latter discussion includes mention of how an online critic of the show ultimately led to Comic Book Guy's infamous line in episode 4F12 "The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show": "Worst. Episode. Ever." Life imitating art imitating life, as it were. Though this is interesting reading, it's also one of the more unfocused chapters, starting off talking about The Internet on The Simpsons and closing with a discussion about societal change and global warming. Slashdot readers will also be amused to see an incorrect citation of Moore's Law on page 304. But I digress.
Chapter 8, "The Ugly Springfieldianite," documents how The Simpson family's travels across America and around the world reflect U.S. actions in world affairs, the global reach of The Simpsons, and the way in which stereotypes are presented in the cartoon. Material such as trips to Australia, Canada and Africa are documented and analyzed, and "ethnic" characters such as Bumblebee Man, Apu and Groundskeeper Willie (including his infamous "Bonjourrrr, you cheese-eating surrender monkeys!") are covered in detail.
Chapter 9, "The Simpsons Go Hollywood," covers the various appearances of celebrities on the show and how for the most part such appearances satirize the very stars themselves. It documents in-person appearances by Tony Blair and Tony Bennett, as well as celebrity voice acting by Kathleen Turner as Stacy Lovell (creator of Malibu Stacy) Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie's first word ("Daddy"), and Johnny Cash as a Space Coyote spirit. It also covers, in some detail, repeat appearances by stars such as Jon Lovitz, Albert Brooks, and the late Phil Hartmann (Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz), as well as the notion of celebrity within The Simpsons itself (Krusty, McBain, etc.). As a whole, this is probably the most solid and focused chapter in the book.
On the other hand, Chapter 10, "The Simpsons Through the Looking Glass," is probably one of the weakest. Still interesting reading, it's a bit unfocused, as if that looking glass were a little bit clouded. It discusses the notion of the mediascape as a vast wasteland, irony, parody, self-reference, satire, hysteria and media saturation, with special attention on the shows inside the show (Krusty, Itchy and Scratchy, etc.) and anchorman Kent Brockman. Perhaps it's a bit too broad of a topic to try and cram into one chapter, especially since many of the same points are made in other sections of the book.
Planet Simpson
The book ends with Chapter 11, "Planet Simpson," in which the author attempts to bring together the disparate ideas presented throughout the book. He discusses the notion of "what is" vs. "what should be," the amusing case of Fox nearly suing itself over Episode ABF09, "Mr. Spritz Goes to Washington" (in which The Simpsons ran a fake news crawl on the bottom, satirizing Fox News), and brings his thesis to a head with this statement:
"Planet Simpson is a state of mind, a loose realm of shared consciousness. It is a place populated by folks who watch The Simpsons every week or even twice a day, who maintain Simpsons fan sites, who never lose at The Simpsons trivia board game, who used to watch it every chance they got, even if these days they don't watch it as much as they used to."
As a member of a generation raised on Saturday Morning cartoons, a person who grew up watching The Simpsons and who now regularly visits websites like Fark, Metafilter and Slashdot where Simpsons references run thick, I can't disagree with the author's notion of a globally-shared Simpsonian philosophy. It's clear that the show has affected our culture (or, at the very least, our Internet subculture), and that American culture has had an impact on the show in return.
Turner's book does a good job of looking at both sides of that coin and presenting his points in a way that is generally interesting and fun to read. Though there are times in the book where I found myself scratching my head, or wondering how he could have missed a favorite quote (Where, oh where, are the dogs who shoot bees from their mouths?), overall this is a solid piece of writing. Anyone who's enjoyed the show will find this enthralling reading, whether you're looking for a bit of Simpsons history, a deeper analysis of the show's impact in the present, or an idea of where the show might go in the future. The book is at times weaker, at others strong; at times unclear, at others startlingly focused; at times funny, and at other times quite serious. But then, that describes The Simpsons as well.
You can purchase Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews. To see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Nancy Cartwright's book is also a must-read for any Simpsons fan.
Stop the Planet of the Simpsons, I want to get off!
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
"The title of Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation says it all."
So we shouldn't read the rest of the long review then?
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
If the Simpsons define this generation, then I say we drop the bomb now.... Wildly entertaining show, often making insightful observations, but I think the title of the book goes too far.
But of course, you don't sell books with a title of "How 'The Simpsons' was a really fun show to watch"
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Best.SimpsonsBook.Ever.
I for one would like to welcome our new cartoon overlords so they might tell me where I could find one of these Simpsons references on Slashdot.
Plant a tree in a developing country.
where simpsons quotes can be funny, informative, insightful, and interesting.
Personally, I like the line "and so as the rat's milk is returned to the sewer, the circle of life is complete." Which if you think about it, is really a metaphor for the overall trajectory of the series and ourselves. The show began weakly (though not in ratings), grew strongly and quickly, plateaued, and is now in decline, until it dies, merely hinting at it once was.
Ah, the noble referer troll, who has kindly stuck in referers from "anydistancecom" into the URLs.
And the reason Slashdot doesn't link to Amazon.com is over the one-click patent thing. Silly, maybe, but at least they're sticking up for a principle.
Now I know you are lying with that "Friends" gimmick. (The imaginary girl you watch pr0n with in your parents' basement doesn't count.)
they certainly got some gags in - one that outwitted the censors was a sign that read "Sneeds Feed and Seed (formerly Chucks)".
I can remember browsing the humor books in the mall bookstores in 1987 and finding the "* is Hell" series and thinking it was pretty wild.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I found one of the biggest problems i had while reading to book was how the writer refered to episdoes by thier production number. This made it hard to tell what season it was from. Often times when talking about an empisode for more than a parigraph or two it became hard to keep track of what he was talking about
Mikey
I've always been the kinda guy to fall for the girl dressed like an eskimo.
I've always thought one of the best things about The Simpsons' satire has been its decided lack of an agenda. So often, satire seems aimed at making you agree to one particular viewpoint or another (or at least aimed at only being funny to those who already believe said viewpoint). Simpsons has never done that. They effectively satirize the weaknesses of all manner of views and beliefs. They're an impartial commentator. Nothing is sacred. For any cutting satirical jab made at a part of the American cultural landscape, I can point to another made at the opposing viewpoint. They aren't conservative or liberal, religious or atheist, great tasting or less filling. That in and of itself is a great achievement.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
I heard that The Simpsons has only declined in quality in recent years as a satire on bad television and lack of ideas from TV writers as a whole...
Reminds me why I like anime. Lots of it (not all though) is a really long story. Take Fullmetal Alchemist for instance, great series, and ends in 51 episodes, unlike some others that drag and drag until they become a bleak shadow of what they were before.
The long stories with no continuity, even when they are good tend to turn to crap sooner or later. In anime that'd be Ranma, Inuyasha, Dragon Ball Z (eew). The Simpsons seem to be dying a slower death, but I already don't bother watching it and read slashdot instead.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
This sounds like a perfectly cromulant book.
What the fuck is this daypass shit anyway? Where I live a daypass allows a psychotic out of the asylum to look for a job.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
I'm a huge Simpsons fan who will challenge any other Simpsons nerd in a quote showdown any day of the week. However, I found this book to be a real snore. It picks the show apart like vultures on a carcass until nothing but the bones remain, gleaming in the sun. This book is too detailed for all but fanatics, and 99% too obvious for the die-hards. I never thought anything could make Simpsons boring, but this book is it. It reads like a pompous Masters thesis and is drier than the Sahara.
Kinda sounds like The Simpsons And Society: An Analysis Of Our Favorite Family And Its Influence In Contemporary Society
Just like The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer
Seriously, I [heart] the Simpsons, but I'd like to [club] pseudo-intellectual wanna-bes who think they can pose as avant-guard by doing a serious analysis of something as frivolous as a cartoon. Guess what? It's been done! They aren't breaking new ground; they don't challenge our ideas about culture.
Baseball players on steroids isn't news. (Seriously, did you think Mark Mcguire's neck looked like a roast beef naturally?) Avril Lavigne isn't punk. And leeching off of Matt Groening's genius and writing a book on the Simpsons isn't interesting or insightful.
I don't know how old the author is, but for those of us who grew up in the 70's and 80's on Warner Brothers (and other) reruns, sight gags such as the tumbleweed blowing by to highlight the lack of life, or crickets chirping to highlight the lack of applause, is pretty common and many decades old. In fact, it is "old school," if this old fart may borrow from the 90's vernacular.
What? South Park doesn't define a generation?
What about the "South Park Republican"?
As the show's co-creator, 32-year-old Matt Stone, sums it up: 'I hate conservatives, but I really f--ing hate liberals.'"
As a voting libertarian, I looked at the entire Terry Schiavo incident exactly as the SP creators did, seeing hypocrisy in the way conservatives viewed "playing God". I think if anything, South Park alone might contribute to destruction of the Republican Party as one of only morals, and might even get it back into shape as representing the small-government advocates it once did.
Or one can hope, anyway.
Because Amazon.com's servers transmitted the image containing a paybox and your name within the paybox directly to your browser software, the site owner never saw the paybox or your name and never received any information about you
So Amazon gives the site a piece of code that they put on their page. When your browser displays it your Amazon cookie is sent to Amazon, who knows your name and inserts it into the text as an attention getter.
So, to repeat this, they did NOT give the site your name or other personal information. It was not resold. Which means you're jumping around like an idiot for no reason.
If you're going to rant about something, it sometimes helps to know WTF you're talking about.
Not always. But sometimes.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
From Slashdot subculture: