Monthly Archives: March 2004

This is kinda funny. Monday night, David Letterman ran one of his almost-nightly clips that makes a prominent politician look bad. Most target Mr. Bush but there's the occasional shot at Kerry or Schwarzenegger. Anyway, after it ran, a lady on CNN said they they'd been informed by the White House that the clip was a phony and Mr. Letterman lashed back. CNN later said it was a simple error and that there had been no call from the White House, which makes you wonder just how the folks at CNN think the news is supposed to work. Anyway, this weblogger has captured both clips from the Letterman show and if you have a RealMedia video player on your computer, you'll be able to see them.

I keep having to post obits here for writers I knew. John Sack was a lovely gent who first came to prominence when as the war correspondent for Esquire Magazine in the Vietnam era, he authored the revelatory and definitive article on the My Lai massacre. Often named as one of the most important pieces of sixties journalism, it appeared under the cover blurb, "Oh, my God — we hit a little girl!" John called it (and his subsequent book which expanded on it), merely M. The full text of the article is currently posted over on this page of the Esquire website. It may not be there forever, so you might want to at least capture it now.

Better still, read it. It's a solid piece of journalism which, John always claimed, no one ever rebutted in any meaningful way. It's also an interesting adjunct to the newly-resurfaced discussions about alleged war crimes in 'Nam as reported by John Kerry.

Also on that website is an obit for John and another of his articles, this one a recent piece on Afghanistan. During his long career, he wrote for dozens of other magazines, authored ten books, produced and/or wrote TV documentaries and won an awful lot of respect. I worked with him for a time in the eighties and he never ceased to amaze me with little snippets about the places he'd been, the things he'd seen, the people he'd known. A few months ago, Game Show Network re-ran a sixties' To Tell the Truth on which he'd appeared, along with two other folks who pretended to be John Sack, the adventuring reporter. Thanks to TiVo, I snagged a copy and called him to see if he'd like a tape. He said yes, and that he'd take me to lunch the next time he was in Los Angeles and get the cassette. I'm sorry that never happened because I always enjoyed my encounters with John. Considering all he'd done, you just couldn't help but learn from the guy.

As we all know, the Comic-Con International in San Diego is a joyous and wonderful event that occurs, this year, from July 22 through July 25. As we who have gone to them know, there is one thing wrong with the Comic-Con International in San Diego. It's that so many people attend that the parking lots and hotels are jammed for miles around. A few years ago, I actually had a guest on one of the panels I hosted not appear because he was driving around and around and could not find a place to park his car. Long past the start time of the panel, he gave up and drove home.

Well, you'll be utterly thrilled to know that this situation is going to get a whole lot worse. Next week, the San Diego Padres start their season in their new home, Petco Park — so named because it was underwritten by the company that sells kibble and catnip mice. Petco Park is just a few blocks from the San Diego Convention Center and expects to share most of the same transportation and parking resources. In fact, this website for Petco Park even suggests the parking lot at the Convention Center as among the good places to park when you're going to a Padres game.

Now, we may have a slight break this year since the Padres will not be playing at home from July 16 through July 25. That, however, does not mean this spanking, new state-of-the-art coliseum will be empty all that time. There may be a concert or some other athletic event booked in there while we're around. And even if it is unoccupied this year, that can't last. Next year or the year after, we'll wind up with 40,000 Padres fans flooding into the area the same nights we're all trying to get dinner at a nearby restaurant or just get from one place to another.

What I'm getting at is that if you're planning on attending this year's Comic-Con, you might want to do some extra planning and leave some extra time. And if you're going to the 2005 Comic-Con and expect to get a parking space, I'd leave now.

Listening to Al Franken, as I did intermittently today, I have to think: What is the appeal of Talk Radio? Admittedly, I've never been a huge fan of it, in part because so much of it seems theatrical, as opposed to political. The hosts I've sampled (and two I've met) have generally failed to convince me they really believed what they were saying…or that they'd believe it if they weren't getting rich and famous from their line of attack. To use another analogy to professional wrestling: When I did that show with Hulk Hogan and Roddy Piper and Cap'n Lou Albano, I heard a lot about that business and one overriding observation was that Reality tends to emulate Art. The scenario masters decide that Wrestler X is going to be a devout enemy of Wrestler Y, and they send them out to hate each other and threaten each other and to hit each other over the head with folding chairs and such. It starts as an act but eventually, as often as not, they find actual reasons to hate each other. On the show I produced, we could not have Hulk and "Rowdy" Roddy in the studio at the same time.

A lot of what I've heard on Talk Radio has struck me as the host just saying what he thinks will keep people tuned in. Those who agree will listen for the reinforcement, and the joy of hearing those they hate get bitch-slapped, and maybe so they can learn some arguments to use against their friends who see the world in a different manner. A friend once told me that every time the news is good for the Democrats, Rush Limbaugh's ratings go up as right-wingers tune in to be reassured and to hear the "spin" as to why the news, whatever it is, really isn't good for the Democrats. In the meantime, a certain amount of those who don't concur with the host will tune in out of a perverse desire to get mad and to hope, usually in vain, that some caller will take the guy down a peg. (It's in vain, of course, because it's close to impossible to lay a glove on someone who can cut off your microphone. Even when you're right and he's wrong. Most Talk Radio hosts do not fare well in a venue they can't control, which is why most avoid them or, like Bill O'Reilly on his book tours, manage to embarrass themselves.) Ultimately, the worst sin in Talk Radio is to be boring and the best way to not be that is to select someone as The Enemy and to do wholesale demonization of them. If one is to fill that many hours a week, one has to seize on every allegation and rumor, giving air time to a lot of bogus stories.

At some point, as with the wrestlers, a lot of Talk Radio hosts and extremist pundits start to believe their own bull. They're getting rich off it. They're getting famous from it. In public places, total strangers come up and thank them for saving America. We'd all like to think that wouldn't warp our thinking, and that we'd adhere to impartial truth and fairness, but a lot of us would get seduced by the finances and fame. We might privately recognize it was an act, or we might start to believe the extreme was the middle and that always seeing the worst in The Enemy was impartial truth and fairness. Either way, we'd realize that a certain amount of hysteria was necessary, just as a matter of showmanship. And if our ratings started to drop or our book sales started to slide, we'd probably panic and ratchet up the hysteria and demonization. If Liberals haven't done as much of that as Conservatives, it's only because they haven't had the economic incentives. I don't really buy the notion that the thing working against Liberal Radio is that lefties are nuanced and more reasonable. Off the radio, most are…just as most Conservatives aren't like Limbaugh or Liddy if they don't have a mike in front of them. What has worked against Liberal Radio is the same thing that's worked against westerns on variety shows on TV: Some day, Liberal Talk Radio may be all the rage but right now, there's no business model that shows anyone getting Limbaugh-style paychecks for doing it.

The new Air America Radio project has many handicaps, just as any new radio venture does…and unfortunately for it, its success or failure will probably be judged on immediate results, not on long-term impact. Most radio success stories are a matter of slow, long-range achievement, so I'm not optimistic. I'm also not likely to be listening. There are only so many hours in my day and I can't afford to devote many (sometimes, any) of them to either hearing someone blindly mock my political views or just as blindly reinforce them. I might make time if there was a real back-and-forth, with reasonable people trying to understand and deal with alternative opinions, rather than to just try and stomp them out of existence. But if a radio show did that, it probably wouldn't survive long in today's marketplace. There is a reason they don't hire or even interview a lot of people who have minds that could conceivably be changed. It's not Good Radio, just as it isn't Good Wrestling if we don't hate the bad guy.

I haven't decided yet if Al Franken's show is Good Radio or Bad Radio. The first one was pleasant enough if you don't get violently ill at hearing people criticize George W. Bush. I'm not sure it will please those who thrill to Bush-bashing the way a certain segment of the population liked to hear that Hillary was going to prison for Filegate, that Bill was going to be tossed outta office for Monicagate and that both would eventually be executed for the murder of Vince Foster. Even if Franken does wind up serving that audience, I'm not sure they're enough of them out there, or enough willing to tune in every day, to make a go of it. I only know that if he pleases them, he won't please me. And even if he doesn't please them, I may not find the time to listen, anyway.

Here are two articles in the L.A. Times about today's launch of the left-wing Air America Radio. This one by Al Franken tells what he hopes to do. This one by two other guys says it won't work.

I suspect, merely as a matter of prediction, the odds favor the latter view. A friend of mine in the restaurant business once said, "If every time someone opens a new restaurant you predict it will fail within a year, you'll be correct a pretty impressive percentage of the time." New radio ventures probably work about the same way.

You need to fill out a form for a free subscription to read this article. It only takes a few moments but for those of you who don't want to do this, I'll summarize. Here's the lede…

PROVIDENCE — Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said his press secretary was a little worried when he first proposed putting a Spider-Man quote on the building. When the former attorney general, Sheldon Whitehouse, took office in 1999, he installed a bronze plaque outside 150 S. Main St. declaring: "I will not cease from mental fight. Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand…" The words are from one of Whitehouse's favorite poems — written by the noted early 19th-century English poet William Blake.

Lynch, who took office last year, is now preparing to install a new plaque that declares: "With great power comes great responsibility." The words are from Stan Lee, the 20th-century American comic book pioneer who created Spider-Man. Lynch said he was inspired by his 6-year-old son, Graham — an avid Spider-Man fan who tugged on his father's pants and said those words moments before Lynch's inauguration in January 2003.

The piece goes on to say that Lynch is hoping to get Stan Lee and Tobey Maguire to come to Providence in June for the unveiling. That happens to be when the next Spider-Man movie is opening.

My pal Nat Gertler reminds me of another reason you should order your copy of The Complete Peanuts from Fantagraphics. When you do, you can also order a copy of the forthcoming Li'l Beginnings, a complete collection of Schulz's early panel gags and strips about kids. I mean, you're going to spring for The Complete Peanuts so you might as well go all the way and order this 300-page book, which will probably not be available in most outlets. They'll have it at the Charles M. Schulz Museum but it'll be cheaper and easier to order it from Fantagraphics. So do this.

The body of author Katherine Lawrence was found March 27 by a group of hikers along the San Pedro River. She had been reported missing to Tucson police days earlier. Exactly what occurred is not known, nor is her age, but she was a relatively young woman in (I'm guessing) her late thirties or early forties. Many people reading this knew her under the name of Kathy Selbert when she was pursuing a career in television writing. She wrote for, among other shows, Dungeons and Dragons, Conan the Adventurer and Hypernauts and was active in a number of our attempts to get animation writing covered by the Writers Guild…a movement that has finally, slowly, achieved some real progress.

I did not know Kathy well. She was a quiet type who preferred to express herself in her stories. Still, the news comes as a shock and a lot of us are very sorry to hear it.

Here's a website that will tell you everything you want to know about The Avengers. And I'm talking about the British TV series, not the Marvel comic book.

I have in my hand a hot-off-the-presses copy of the most eagerly-awaited comic strip collection I can recall. It's Volume One of The Complete Peanuts, reprinting Mr. Schulz's immortal strip from Day One. This is an important project not just because it's an important strip but because it's chronological and complete. Despite the ubiquitous presence of Charlie Brown reprints at one time, a great many Peanuts strips have not been seen since their one, disposable newspaper appearance, and a lot of them are in this first collection which takes us from 1950 through 1952.

Fantagraphics Books has done a splendid job. The physical book is smaller than I guess I was expecting…but then it struck me that they weren't wrong, I was. Peanuts was a small-format strip and the book has the dailies at precisely the size they were meant to be seen. Many strips appear to have been "restored" but the restorers did about as fine a job as anyone could expect. There's an introduction by Garrison Keillor, an afterword/analysis by David Michaelis and an interview with Schulz. I know some have complained about the cover and design, which were done by the cartoonist, Seth. I'd have preferred a bit more Schulz and a bit less Seth in this regard but this is a minor quibble, especially when there is so much to love.

One of the things I love is that you get to see Charles Brown and Charles Schulz mature together. Schulz's strip was professional from its inception and if he'd never advanced beyond what he was doing the first year, it would probably still be well-remembered, occupying a place in Comic Strip History somewhere between Nancy and Family Circus. That he ascended to a high place in American pop-culture had to do with a sensibility that you can just see beginning to blossom in this first edition. The changes are subtle, advancing like the hour hand on a clock, but there is unmistakable movement…and it's fascinating to watch it occur, in large part because it's all Schulz. It isn't so much that he never used assistants on his lettering or backgrounds as that he never used anyone else's sensibilities. You can almost hear the wheels turning as he takes the occasional misstep in developing the characters and hurriedly course-corrects. You can see the art begin to get quirkier as the characters get quirkier and begin to demand more expression. It's going to be fun to collect these books and watch Schulz hit his peak…and of course, we'll all be arguing about just when that occurs. (I have a friend who thinks it occurs about halfway through Volume One, and then it's all downhill from the moment Snoopy learned to think aloud.)

On this page, I have repeatedly urged you to go to this link and order the book directly from Fantagraphics. This has prompted several of you to write and ask why, for the love of God, I want you to do such a fool thing. From the publisher, it's $28.95 and I don't get a commission. If you order from Amazon, it's $20.27 and I do. Why do I want to cost us all money? Well, the answer is that, first of all, you'll get it sooner from the publisher. But more important is that you'll support them directly. I'd like to see this project do well so that…well, you know why. It's so there'll be more collections of more strips, done with the completeness and care of this one.

Nevertheless, if the price makes a difference to you, here's an Amazon link to order this first treasury of Schulz. Better you should get it that way than not get it at all.

A few hours ago, I posted a couple of weblog entries here which have disappeared due to a glitch. Did anyone here perchance capture them? Maybe you still have them in your Temporary Internet Files cache. If you do, please upload them to me so I can repost. I'm looking in particular for anything posted last night between 8:00 PM and Midnight, but especially a long, gushing review I wrote of the first volume of The Complete Peanuts, which I received today. Thanks!

If you haven't seen it yet, go watch the new adventure of Jerry Seinfeld and Superman. Yeah, it's an American Express commercial and, yes, Superman is a little silly. But it's clever enough to make you overlook those little things. Go to this page and click on the can that says "uniform." (The other cans are also worth your attention.)

Recently, the Los Angeles Times ran a gloomy assessment of work prospects in the Hollywood animation community. Here's a slightly-abridged version of that article, which I believe to be frighteningly correct.

Yes, I know this site has been down a few times today. Not my fault.

A Superior Court judge has thrown out the lawsuit against the Disney organization regarding unpaid royalties on Winnie the Pooh. The ruling states that the plaintiffs (the company that controls licensing rights) had unlawfully obtained certain documents. I have no idea if that's so but I did wince when I read this quote from Daniel Petrocelli, the lead lawyer for Disney…

After 13 years in the courts, the Winnie the Pooh case is finally over. Disney's position has been vindicated in its entirety. We're obviously extremely pleased with the outcome and we think it was the only appropriate one.

Uh, no. First off, the case may not be over because it will be appealed and may be reinstated. No case is over until appeals are exhausted.

But more to the point, this case was about one party, Stephen Slesinger Inc., claiming that it was owed certain royalties. The Disney position was that under the terms of the contract, they did not owe these royalties. Today's ruling doesn't go anywhere near that area of the dispute, so how could Disney's position be "vindicated in its entirety?" If this decision does hold up, they'll have won because the Slesinger folks did something unlawful in obtaining some papers, not because the claim of royalties was without merit.

I find this disappointing because I really admired Petrocelli for his work on the second O.J. Simpson trial. What a shame to find out that underneath all that heroism, he's just another lawyer.