Zadie Smith Loves Monty Python

From the New Yorker, “Dead Man Laughing” is a personal essay by author Zadie Smith exploring her family’s fondness for British comedy. Her father, a lifelong “comedy nerd,” memorizes sitcom tapes and sketch LPs with the avidity of a collector. The darkness and resignation of British humor gives him a context to engage his own disappointments, all the way to the end.

“Genealogically speaking, Harvey had his finger on the pulse of British comedy, for Hancock begot Basil Fawlty, and Fawlty begot Alan Partridge, and Partridge begot the immortal David Brent. And Hancock and his descendants served as a constant source of conversation between my father and me, a vital link between us when, class-wise, and in every other wise, each year placed us farther apart. As in many British families, it was university wot dunnit. When I returned home from my first term at Cambridge, we couldn’t discuss the things I’d learned, about Anna Karenina, or G. E. Moore, or Gawain and his staggeringly boring Green Knight, because Harvey had never learned them—but we could always speak of Basil.”

After her father’s passing, Smith shifts the second half of the article to her brother’s attempts to become a stand-up comedian. In chronicling his efforts, she examines the framework of stand-up comedy, exploring how comedians create their material and often, finally, desert their craft in anger and sadness.

“Audiences love death-defiers like [Russell] Kane. It’s what they pay their money for, after all: laughs per minute. They tend to be less fond of those comedians who have themselves tired of the non-stop laughter and pine for a little silence. I want to call it “comedy nausea.” Comedy nausea is the extreme incarnation of what my father felt: not only is joke-telling a cheap art; the whole business of standup is, in some sense, a shameful cheat. For a comedian of this kind, I imagine it feels like a love affair gone wrong. You start out wanting people to laugh in exactly the places you mean them to laugh, then they always laugh where you want them to laugh—then you start to hate them for it. Sometimes the feeling is temporary. The comedian returns to standup and finds new joy in, and respect for, the art of death-defying. Sometimes, as with Peter Cook (voted, by his fellow-comedians, in a British poll, the greatest comedian of all time), comedy nausea turns terminal, and only the most difficult laugh in the world will satisfy. Toward the end of his life, when his professional comedy output was practically nil, Cook made a series of phone calls to a radio call-in show, using the pseudonym Sven from Swiss Cottage (an area of northwest London), during which he discussed melancholy Norwegian matters in a thick Norwegian accent, arguably the funniest and bleakest “work” he ever did.”

Lester Bangs on Fun House

To commemorate the passing of Stooges guitarist Ron Asheton, here’s a link to Lester Bangs’ very, very long Creem review of the Stooges Fun House: “Of Pop and Pies and Fun.”

It’s an interesting read, if tinged with the mania of the man and his times. Bangs presents the Stooges as authentics, aware of the self-parody of rock-star godhood, with Iggy serving their monster in the middle. He also riffs on them being the first band to formed before they really knew how to play, highlighting the freedom that ignorance unleashed on their music.

But the Stooges are one band that does have the strength to meet any audience on its own terms, no matter what manner of devilish bullshit that audience might think up (although they are usually too cowed by Ig’s psychically pugnacious assertiveness to do anything but gape and cringe slightly, snickering later on the drive home). Iggy is like a matador baiting the vast dark hydra sitting afront him—he enters the audience frequently to see what’s what and even from the stage his eyes reach out searingly, sweeping the joint and singling out startled strangers who’re seldom able to stare him down. It’s your stage as well as his and if you can take it away from him why, welcome to it. But the Kind of the Mountain must maintain the pace, and the authority, and few can. In this sense Ig is a true star of the most incredible kind—he has won that stage, and nothing but the force of his own presence entitles him to it.

Here’s this smug post-hippie audience, supposedly so loose, liberated, righteous and ravenous, the anarchic terror of middle Amerikan insomnia. These are the folks that’re always saying: “Someday, somebody’s gonna just bust that fucked up punk right in the chops!” And how many times have you heard people say of bands: “Man, what a shuck! I could get up there and cut that shit.”

Well, here’s your chance. The Stooge act is wide open. Do your worst, People, falsify Iggy and the Stooges, get your kicks and biffs. It’s your night!

Seeing the Stooges at South by Southwest in 2007 was a thrill—perhaps the most exciting show I’ve been to. Fun House ranks as one of the top rock albums of all time, ripping its way through “T.V. Eye,” “1970” and “Dirt.” And Ron Asheton was a big part of their sound, pushing the band forward with a mean, unforgettable fuzzed-out tone. He will be missed.

Update: Mark Deming of Allmusic.com has a great write-up as well, “Real Cool Time,” focusing specifically on Asheton.

Bush’s Reach, Bush’s Grasp

The New Yorker recently had an illuminating profile of Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve. Beyond exploring how Bernanke’s Alan-Greenspan-hand-me-down, laissez faire philosophy contributed to our current recession (hey, we may yet get a Great Depression out of this after all!), the article presents this revealing account of Bernake’s first meeting with Bush.

In June 2005, Bernanke was sworn in at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. One of his first tasks was to deliver a monthly economics briefing to the President and the Vice-President. After he and Hubbard sat down in the Oval Office, President Bush noticed that Bernanke was wearing light-tan socks under his dark suit. “Where did you get those socks, Ben?” he asked. “They don’t match.” Bernanke didn’t falter. “I bought them at the Gap—three pairs for seven dollars,” he replied. During the briefing, which lasted about forty-five minutes, the President mentioned the socks several times.

The following month, Hubbard’s deputy, Keith Hennessey, suggested that the entire economics team wear tan socks to the briefing. Hubbard agreed to call Vice-President Cheney and ask him to wear tan socks, too. “So, a little later, we all go into the Oval Office, and we all show up in tan socks,” Hubbard recalled. “The President looks at us and sees we are all wearing tan socks, and he says in a cool voice, ‘Oh, very, very funny.’ He turns to the Vice-President and says, ‘Mr. Vice-President, what do you think of these guys in their tan socks?’ Then the Vice-President shows him that he’s wearing them, too. The President broke up.

This emphasis of propriety—something Bernanke dismissed earlier in the article as “signaling”—is the only thing Bush seemed to have a handle on during his eight years in office. Hell, about the only time he apologized was after needling a reporter for wearing sunglasses. The reporter turned out to be blind.

I guess that’s what you get when you elect the first M.B.A. President. We took a middle manager and made him the most powerful man in the world.

Blago-Bashing

FLYMF alum Stefan Schumacher pulls a nice burn on in-the-process-of-being-disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich in the Chicago Tribune. (I would like to point out, for posterity, that I identified Blagojevich as a scumbag during his first run in 2002. I even voted Republican, people!)

Quoting Stefan:

Following Elvis’ lyrics closely

Gov. Blagojevich is all shook up. He’s the devil in the disguise. He’s a fool who rushed in. And soon he’ll be doing the jailhouse rock.

–Stefan Schumacher

Des Plaines

Stefan’s work for FLYMF included I Love My Dingy Poppers.

Sex and the Culture Divide

In Red Sex, Blue Sex, New Yorker writer Margaret Talbot explores the differences in teen pregnancy and attitudes toward sex in “blue” and “red” states. What’s fascinating about the article is that it highlights a real schism between those who claim to care the most about “family values” (the latter) and those who achieve the best outcomes for families (the former).

Among the stats and anecdotes recounted, Talbot highlights the following:

In 2004, the states with the highest divorce rates were Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho, and West Virginia (all red states in the 2004 election); those with the lowest were Illinois, Massachusetts, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Jersey. The highest teen-pregnancy rates were in Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas (all red); the lowest were in North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine (blue except for North Dakota). “The ‘blue states’ of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic have lower teen birthrates, higher use of abortion, and lower percentages of teen births within marriage,” [family-law scholars] Cahn and Carbone observe.

The tempting takeaway is to say, “These people are nuts, and that’s why I don’t live in Oklahoma.” But Talbot is careful to temper holier-than-thou-ism against the holier-than-thous by pointing out that the issue is muddled by poverty and lack of resources. On the whole, though, the article offers a damning indictment of the abstinence-only industry.

In closing, she offers a heartening case for liberal values offering an edifice for healthy kids and marriages:

Evangelicals are very good at articulating their sexual ideals, but they have little practical advice for their young followers. Social liberals, meanwhile, are not very good at articulating values on marriage and teen sexuality—indeed, they may feel that it’s unseemly or judgmental to do so. But in fact the new middle-class morality is squarely pro-family. Maybe these choices weren’t originally about values—maybe they were about maximizing education and careers—yet the result is a more stable family system. Not only do couples who marry later stay married longer; children born to older couples fare better on a variety of measures, including educational attainment, regardless of their parents’ economic circumstances. The new middle-class culture of intensive parenting has ridiculous aspects, but it’s pretty successful at turning out productive, emotionally resilient young adults. And its intensity may be one reason that teen-agers from close families see child-rearing as a project for which they’re not yet ready. For too long, the conventional wisdom has been that social conservatives are the upholders of family values, whereas liberals are the proponents of a polymorphous selfishness. This isn’t true, and, every once in a while, liberals might point that out.

Why, it almost makes a social liberal want to say, “Amen!”