the closers, a novel
Item:
A paperback copy of The Closers, by Michael Connelly.
Why It’s Here:
I want to make a joke here about Glengarry Glen Ross, something about the book being for people with coffee, or Always Be Reading The Closers or something. Maybe some sort of Al Pacino gag. What was his character? Roma. I think it was Roma. Maybe I could put together a Tony Roma joke? That might—no, no, that’s just stupid.
I gotta think of something. Gotta—guys, cut it out, quit waving your arms like that. I’m trying to think here. Christ. Can’t a guy work out a joke for his websi—
On the air? What do you mean, we’re on the air?
Probable Recipient:
Someone who want to read a novel?
Look, I’ve got nothing here. Nothing.
Michael Connelly:
Is Sean Connery’s…Japanese brother?
Christ. Stupid and offensive. Why would I make light of a superficial difference in the phonological content of spoken Japanese vs. English? How is that funny? And Michael isn’t a Japanese name, anyway. The joke doesn’t make sense.
dbl Said,
October 9, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
Fantastic.
I was obviously redirected here from the current front page Act 3 - “Coffee is for closers”, given the tardiness of this comment. This entry is postmodern comedy gold on so many levels. First off, breaking the fourth wall. You set the tone right off the bat of inclusion with the reader. Mixing medias, like a silent movie gag in a novel. That’s the good stuff, right there. Actually, before that point, the very fact of self-referencing a previous posting, directing us to this post in the first place. A postmodern work can not be contained by its own boundaries. It must be recursive. Then you take it to the next level. The straight line, followed by the underhanded appeal for sympathy. By acknowledging the lack of humor, you engender a camaraderie with the reader. There’s some more of that inclusion. Our postmodern sensibilities have to be *involved*. Don’t lecture at us, don’t talk down to us, *engage* us in a *conversation*.
And then? Bam. Screw multiculturalism. Totally over the top revealed inner dialogue, that doesn’t even take itself seriously. Should we laugh? You acknowledge yourself the prejudice and naked bigotry associated with the non-funny statement. You seem contrite enough. Lord knows we love contriteness. Everybody loves a villain who sees the error of his ways.
All in all? Great entry. It’s an intellectual comedy.
Josh Millard Said,
October 9, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Christ, I need to show this to that jackass from New York Times Web Review. Finally, someone with some taste!