As many of you know, the possibility of a writer from The Simpsons coming to talk to my class has been dangling before me for some time now. Well, one woman at the show (not at the writers’ end) called yesterday to take the opportunity out of my sight.

She had been forwarded an email in which I recounted meeting Dana Gould (appearing on Bill Maher’s show this week) and him asking if I’d had anyone from the show visit my class. I had replied to him that I didn’t even know I could ask for that.

The woman from the show said, “And that’s funny. Because you can’t.”

That’s not funny. Now we know why she doesn’t work in the writers’ room.

At first, she said that they couldn’t have anyone speak because it might seem like an endorsement of my book (which is by nature and necessity “unofficial” (as basically all literary analysis/pedagogy books are, by the way)). I explained that the class wasn’t my book and that I was not after an endorsement.

Doesn’t matter.

So I asked if I could have a guest speaker after my book went to the publisher.

She said perhaps, but also reminded me that there are lots of Simpsons classes out there. (I’m not special.)

I had been thinking about trying to get one of the writers here next year as part of our “Conversations With Writers” series. I would hate to think that UC Davis students can’t speak to them because I’m writing / will have written a book.

I tried to salvage the situation by addressing another legal issue, since she kept talking about the legal problem of “endorsing” me. One of the things I need the show to tell me is how long a dialogue can I use and have them consider it fair use.

I try to respect intellectual property and am responsible for getting permissions, after all. Denise and I need to know these things and our publisher doesn’t know what use would tee the show off.

I tried to ask her and she just refused to hear what I was saying (it was like she was in “no” mode and had decided before she called that I would get nothing out of her). First, she said they didn’t have time to read my book and that they couldn’t authorize anything because they didn’t know what we were writing, no matter how well-intentioned we might be.

I wasn’t asking for a reading or an authorization.

So I tried to give her an example. There’s a five line exchange I want to use–how do I know if that’s “too much” and falls out of fair use.

She suggested that I use the DVDs to check the accuracy of the quote, as they can’t do that.

Um, I wasn’t asking for that.

“Could someone tell me what’s considered fair use?”

“No.”

I still don’t think she got what I was asking.

I’m extremely frustrated. I’m going to try to maintain my other contacts (who have all been very nice) so that perhaps one day I can get someone to say “ten lines is too much; nine is fine” or that they would be happy to have someone speak to us at UCD (which at least one writer did say, until we were told he couldn’t).

For the first time, The Simpsons has made me sad.

I was just in a little voodoo shop in the French Quarter of New Orleans and received the long awaited phone call from Denise of Grace Films (aka The Simpsons). My class may get a guest speaker!

In other news, it takes way too long to go anywhere or do anything with five people!

Well, classes start on Monday and I’m finally ready for them, but I didn’t have a day off this week (and I won’t this weekend, either). Oh, well.

I’m almost over my frakking disappointment about the end of BSG. Almost. Maybe I just need to decide that I shouldn’t worry about it. The writer made it all weird–because he’s an angel and god wanted it to suck for some reason.

Things to look forward to: Margaret Atwood is writing a short story for the Canadian libraries. Should be able to access it online next month. A new Monty Python documentary will be available in October.

In other news, The Simpsons won me back with their latest episode. They go to Ireland and the jokes are funny and there are references to Bloomsday and the couple from Once is in it–perfection!

I was rather caught off guard by what was probably the last ever episode of Flight of the Conchords. It didn’t feel like an ending until the last couple of minutes, when everything wrapped up really nicely. Whatever angel wrote that show managed to do a good job.

Oh, wait–maybe god’s plan was to make the end of BSG suck so that I would appreciate the finale of Conchords!

Anyway, as much as I love Conchords, I’m not that upset if it’s indeed over. Season one was great; this season has had great moments, but the songs haven’t been as good (on average). I’m just going to have to get the DVDs and celebrate with them quietly every once in a while.

Flash forward to me doing so in a few decades–and then one of the songs activates the cylon part of me. And then I do some math. And then I ascend, embarrassed that I ever doubted.

Ok, I’m apparently not over it at all.

Courtney wrote a wonderful alternate ending to last night’s BSG atrocity on Facebook.  I agree with her that there was too much spiritualism (any story that can be tied up with “angels” doesn’t do it for me).

Adama is going to be a ghost of a man, talking to a buried woman. Lee is going to be an explorer (good for him). Angels are going to walk around worrying about our robots. Cylons will come out of comas to deliver good byes. God doesn’t like being called God (which Biblically is his own problem since he won’t give us his name). Frak!!!  The producers said we’d be surprised and satisfied with the ending. I’m surprised it was so bad. The only thing that satisfies me is that a certain person got her comeuppance.

Courtney also mentioned that the series seems to have lost the human/cylon distinction, although neither the humans nor the cylons seemed to get that. But if we are to believe the monotheist mythology that the show is apparently grounded in, both humans and cylons are “designed” by an intelligent force. And part of God’s plan is to kill off 11 colonies and most of the cylons for . . . well, not sure. But we’re supposed to be awed by it.

I’m not sure the show is doing what good sci fi is supposed to do, which is to make us think about what being human means. The “other” in sci fi is there to make us think about ourselves, to define ourselves. The cylons became completely us by the end of this. On the one hand, we can take that to mean that the “monster” is us–which is what most sci fi/fantasy/jungian-driven stuff implies–but the mythology is somehow getting in the way. Maybe it’s that I feel that “God’s plan” takes away too much free will. So what are cylons and humans? Just pawns in some cosmic game. Why even worry about the monsters and whether we are they?

Frak.

Here’s my alternate ending:  Starbuck wakes up from a bad dream in a bed.  Her husband, Bobby Ewing, is in the shower, safe and sound. 

In other tv news, Breaking Bad is awesome; Nikki is getting caught for all her shit in Big Love. Family Guy took a swipe at The Simpsons last week (I hope the show takes it as a compliment).

And as for The Simpsons, the last episode bothered me. It was a Da Vinci Code-esque night. There were several fine jokes at the beginning, but The Simpsons, like BSG, got too religious. Lisa cracks a code–she thinks she is supposed to bring peace. She then is told that Maggie is actually the chosen one. While Lisa points out that the code only makes sense if Lisa messed it up first (which should bring doubt), the show ends in un-skeptically. It’s not sitting well with me.

No wonder I can’t frakkin’ sleep.

With the advent of Twitter, I don’t see how “twitterpated” won’t make it back into the regular lexicon. Denise and I are fairly twitterpated this week. A certain director of The Simpsons movie twittered us after Denise said she was working on the Linguistics section of the book.

Since, he’s asked to see my syllabus! It’s the best thing that’s happened in a relatively lousy week. I won’t go into the lousy stuff.

Instead, I’ll go back to linguistics–why do we call a twitter response a “tweet” and not a “twit”? Then we could say, “This twit says she’s eating egg salad for lunch.” And, as a friend suggested this week, is the past tense of “tweet” “twat”?

http://www.matchflick.com/column/1893

Woohoo!

I’ve been watching Season Three of The Simpsons on DVD (I have to–it’s research!).  Early seasons aren’t often shown in syndication, so I don’t see them all that often (except for the episodes I teach).  I’ve been remembering my first time with all these episodes–how each one reinforced my love for the show.

The boy and I were watching “Homer Alone,” in which Marge gets stressed and needs a while away from the family at Rancho Relaxo.  The family misses her for various reasons and when she returns, they grab her, telling her how much they missed her and demanding she “never leave again.”  The boy asked me if I would like to be greeted that way if I were to leave for a day or two.  I said that the level of dependency was a bit much, but that everyone liked to be appreciated.  He said that I liked his independence and I said he liked mine, but we decided we appreciated each other a lot.  Ah, Simpsons family values.

Marge at Rancho Relaxo--Isn't she pretty with her hair down?

“The Otto Show” features one of my favorite moments in the show.  After driving badly, Otto admits he has no driver’s licence, but says that if anyone wants to confirm his identity, he writes his name in his underwear.  Except:  “Oh, wait, these aren’t mine.”  Kills me every time.

Last thought, in one episode, Bart plays a video game called Larry the Looter–his character breaks store windows and loots.  This small moment was supposed to be a commentary on violent video games through the power of exaggeration.  I remember seeing this for the first time around 1992 and thinking that games would never be that bad.

Naive Karma signing off to go write her name in her underwear.  Oh, wait, I’m not wearing any.

“Take My Life, Please,” featured two new aspects: Hi-Def and a new Opening. Bart tells us in the blackboard that hi-def is worth every penny, but the Simpsons’ hi-def tv falls off the wall when they try to watch it.

But how’s the new opening, you ask? Fabulous. For those who miss the old one, you probably don’t even remember the old one. If you look at the original, it’s very different from what you’ve been seeing for over a decade. It’s longer. (And you may be surprised to know that not every episode even had an opening–for time’s sake, etc.)

The new opening gives us a new gag–the billboard in front of Bart’s school changes, as does Bart’s writing and the couch routine.

It’s great to see some of our current favorite characters (like the cat lady) in the opening. And Marge’s purchases at the store are updated to include tomacco and Mr. Sparkle detergent. (Maggie’s price has also been updated to reflect the amount it takes to raise an infant for a month in today’s economy.)

As far as the episode goes, “Take My Life, Please” features Homer going through an interesting mid-life (he’ll die young, we know it) crisis. Homer learns that he was supposed to be class president and believes that his life would have been superior to what he has. It’s classic Homer angst–rather than blaming his current life on his choices, he can pinpoint one decision (made by someone else).

“How the Test Was Won” had a fabulous couch gag, featuring the Simpsons as characters in classic sitcoms, showing a fine lineage (including the family sitcom’s move to the workplace/friend sitcom a la Cheers).

The episode itself was a critique of No Child Left Behind and standardized testing (the best moment is when Mrs. Krabapple teaches the students the most common test answer arrays (abbadaca, etc)).

The Simpsons has been renewed for two more seasons, which will make it the longest-running prime time series. At least once a week, I come across some blog or article that asks if The Simpsons still has it. Denise came across an idea the other day that it was the audience who has lost it, not The Simpsons. I agree–if anything’s tired, it’s us.

In other words, Simpsons, it’s us, not you. Which is why we’ll do everything we can to make this work.

So I tried crumpets for the first time day–Trader Joe’s rarely does me wrong.  Are they supposed to taste like doughy english muffins and sit heavily in the stomach?

I’ve been watching The Simpsons all week (from the beginning), making notes, and checking the wikipedia entries for things I may have missed (this has led to my new hobby of wikipedia editing–sometimes it’s grammar, sometimes factual.  The boy says I simply must do this service.  It makes me even whiter and nerdier than before!

<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Nh9mVsBKwYs&hl=en&fs=1″></param><paramname=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Nh9mVsBKwYs&hl=en&fs=1″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>

(Yes, the lego version.  I can’t embed the real one for some reason.)

Am also reading everything other people have written about my favorite show.  This in itself isn’t a problem (except that it’s taking a lot of time and I like reading more than the requisite taking of notes).  I’m going crazy with the little and big mistakes and growing increasingly more paranoid that I’m going to make some. 

But really, I’m tired of reading the same two things over and over again (especially when they’re in every article in a book).

1.  One may think it’s strange to write/study/learn from The Simpsons, but . . .

2.  (some description of the characters, e.g. Bart is the troublemaker . . .)

It’s all cliches now and I think I’m going to go mad.  Am tempted to keep a chart with how many times the same words are used (hapless, moral center, etc).