Pop Fiction

Not too long ago, I was in the library searching for a new book on tape to listen to, radio getting increasingly tiresome with every new Madonna song raping the airwaves. At one point I actually almost picked up The Hunt for Red October. Well, I admit I am something of a masochist, but I'm also kinda genuinely interested to see if Clancy-boy's worth the hype. After all, someone I knew chose to read that instead of Watchmen when given the chance.

But rather than punch myself in the balls repeatedly for once, as I would have so many opportunities later (for those of you unfamiliar as to why the author Tom Clancy is a bit of a sore spot for me, perhaps this will illuminate matters somewhat) I ended up choosing another Stephen King, Hearts in Atlantis, narrated by William Hurt.

I've only just finished the first story, the Dark Tower-related "Low Men in Yellow Coats," but it was awesome. Not a fun read/listen, that's for certain, but it really spoke to King's talents as a real writer, rather than the "horror writer" as the literary seems to have written him off for so long. It was nice to see that even when King revisits the coming of age thing yet again he can still take it into very interesting, dark, and sometimes downright infuriating places. (William Hurt also turned in a performance that shouldn't have been surprising, as I do rather love him even if I'm sure he's a huge prick in real life, and yet totally reaffirmed how good he can be even when he's not fucking Kathleen Turner)

It made me think yet again of how, if I ever became a college professor (To get paid for forcing books I love onto people and ranting about them!) I'd kind of like to teach a college course on literary merit in so-called "pop fiction" and page turners. Of course, to do that I'd have to read more best-sellers stuff. I already know some of Stephen King's work could very easily be studied and discussed, but I don't know if I could say the same for the likes of Grisham, Diane Steele, and yes, Tom Clancy.

Are any of them anything beyond entertaining fluff? Do any of those novels on newsstands feature actual character depth, insight into humanity or society, or prose that could be excerpted and studied? If Stephen King can, and work like The Stand, Salem's Lot, Hearts in Atlantis, Different Seasons, and so on seem to me that they conceivably could, then it just makes me wonder what other actually great stories are written off as supermarket crap?

What say you, fellows? Have any of the so-called "pop" novels or novelists ever struck you as being more than, well... "pop"? Methinks I should give a couple of these others authors a chance to see if they hold up under the hype.

Well, ok, maybe not Tom Clancy. I'll stick with Alan Moore, thank you very much.

rant on Family Guy, The Simpsons, and The Great American Novel

Finally snagging it after weeks of it continuously being checked out, I rented the straight-to-DVD FAMILY GUY movie. And I was little more than underwhelmed. I must have actually laughed (and I include "breaking a smile" as laughing) a total of seven times. It's not that it was bad, per se. It sort of... how do I put this? It feels to FAMILY GUY what THE SIMPSONS has been like for the past five years. It feels settled down into its own niche, recycling the same familiar humor and staying perfectly within its comfort zone.

At this point, let me tell you What Grinds My Gears. I keep hearing more and more people and reviewers saying how FAMILY GUY is sooooo much better than THE SIMPSONS, and they always hold Simpsons as they are now as the example. SIMPSONS has been so lame and mediocre, phoning it in with every episode (Marge is angry with Homer and runs off with another man... again; Homer comes up with another waaaacky scheme!; Hey, let's outright make Lenny and Carl gay and shove it down everyone's throats!), whereas FAMILY GUY was shocking, very well written, and pushed the boundaries of taste as well as the airtime on jokes (some were good, like the Chicken Fight, others go on way too long and especially in the new seasons, and neither would ever have happened if Sideshow Bob didn't step on rakes nine times over ten years ago).

And especially around the cult of college students, it became an absolutely ingrained must in social circles, with people throwing quotes back and forth constantly, just as we did with Simpsons for so long. In fact, when I revistited WAC for a weekend to see a play, I wasn't on campus for ten minutes before I heard somebody (Jesse Wolcott) say, "Ooh! A piece of candy. Ooh! A piece of candy. Ooh! A piece of candy!" Along with the rest of the Adult Swim lineup, I slowly moved away from the Simpsons as a thing of my past.

Then not too long ago, trying to stave off madness at the video store, I watched Seasons 3-6 of the Simpsons straight through over the course of the next couple weeks. And here is what I realized, what I once knew but had forgotten- The Simpsons, taken as a whole, is the animated serialized equivalent of The Great American Novel. It's a satire of epic scope, and just as all of humanity could be reflected in the jurors in 12 Angry Men, so even better does the town of Springfield. And even in the case that I'm just being a wanky fanboy on this matter, regardless of all this, the humor in those seasons is, in my opinion, far more intelligent, subversive, and far-reaching than the often-brilliant fart jokes of FAMILY GUY. I honestly don't think that anything Family Guy could do would ever, ever match up to "Cape Feare." Even when FAMILY GUY is "funnier", THE SIMPSONS has been better.

But not anymore, of course. THE SIMPSONS should have been cancelled not long after Season 9, and the movie should have been made around Season 7. I fear the movie currently being made will resemble something like the Family Guy movie. The really odd thing about that is I think back to BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD DO AMERICA and SOUTH PARK: BIGGER, LOUDER, AND UNCUT and how they really were rather brilliant movies (well, I thought BABHDA was at the time; haven't seen it in years), or at least far better than they "should" have been. The Family Guy movie was sadly every bit as funny as it "should" have been, and while I'm enjoying the new seasons immensely (the FCC episode was quite excellent, but when I think about it, only because of the extended Naked Gun reference and Cobra Commander's cameo; Family Guy wouldn't be half as funny as it is without the pop cultural references and remembrances, making me wonder if it's less Simpsons and more "I love the 80's" if you know what I mean), it makes me wonder how long it's gonna last. The movie was a reminder that even Family Guy's time will come, just as it did with Simpsons, and maybe much, much sooner.

Oddly enough, it utterly amazes and delights me how SOUTH PARK still has not yet lost its edge. I would have thought, of all those cartoons, it would have settled into that niche around season 3. But god damn if South Park still cannot be the most shocking, intelligent, subversive satire on TV half the time. And unlike Family Guy, even the fart jokes on South Park sometimes have far-reaching socio-political implications (to use a big and pretentious-sounding word). Now that's funny.