« My Crushed Guts Could Intermingle With Your Crushed Guts • Main • Sometimes You've Just Gotta Take it Back a Notch »

October 01, 2004

Why I Don't Think Dan Lyons is Funny

I've refused writing this post for some time, given that Dan Lyon's is somebody I'd undoubtedly respect and like as a person. Further, what the reader takes from a piece of writing is often times completely outside of the intentions of the author (evidence: this blog). So it'd be wrong for me to carte blanche assume that because of certain things I take from Dan Lyon's column in The Pulse are the things representative of Dan Lyons as a person.

But this blog is, of course, called Irresponsible Journalism. Sometimes its just journalism, other times its just straight irresponsible. I've also got a pounding headache, and I'm in a bit of an ornery mood. So I'm just gonna come right out and say that I don't think Dan Lyons is funny. In fact, I find his humor playing to a base status quo that does little to rise above the merely appetative engagement of culture and life. I surmise this is the product of considering Jerry Seinfeld as the apex of good humor.

Jerry Seinfeld aside (I find the show hilarious, his standup not) I'd like to give my argument. It is a personal conclusion that I do not find Dan Lyons funny, but it is a public (in that I think it is true beyond merely my own experience) assertion/conclusion that Dan Lyon's column is base & affirming of the appetative status quo.

Summarized it would be that:

1. Dan Lyon's column lacks values and ethics. This should not be explicitly thought of in moral terms, but in a Seinfeld-like lack of "valuing of" and "caring for" anything beyond the authors immediate physical stimuli.

Evidence: consider Dan's recent article on "quality time",largely unironic , Dan used the difference between his Wife's understanding of "quality time" as a his own personal definitions of "important" time apparently as a humorous contrast to understand "quality time" better. Except he neither draws out an interesting points concerning quality time, never explains to us "quality time" in a value-sense (which is where the phrase "quality time" gets the very adjective "quality"), and in fact while using his Wife and her good desire for meaningful interaction and time with her husband as a narrative tool in the article, he concludes by a value-less condescension of his Wife's perspective and what I would contest is an a-moral call to a re-assertion of Male Dominance (Nietzsche would be proud!).

The humor, though, is in the obvious observation of his Wife's difference and how he just doesn't understand. I call that willfully ignorant and irresponsible as a good husband.

2. Dany Lyon's "humor" is merely an affirming of the appetative, the shallowly obsevational.

Example: in a recent article entitled "Battle of the Bad Songs" Dan Lyon's discusses the common notion of there existing a large volume of bad pop music. Obvious, but a topic with a great deal of potential. His first example is The Rolling Stones, where he claims they are the "most overrated band", citing the example that "satisfaction" isn't all that great of a song.

My problem isn't that Dan is being a contrarian here (and his is; the weight of both critics, fans, music connoisseur, and your parents being against Dan on this point), but that he's being ignorantly contrarian. While it is true that "Satisfaction" is perhaps the most well known Rolling Stones song, it only takes listening to the Classic Rock station for more than 5 minutes to hear any of the other numerous top 10 & number 1 Rolling Stone songs. You don't even need to listen to the radio, you can see them in dozens of television commercials, from Microsoft using "Start Me Up" in the Windows commercials to Honda using "You Can't Always Get What You Want."

Its now not just that Dan is being shallowly observational, he isn't even aware of what he's observing. Or maybe he is? It certainly isn't coming out in his writing.

The problem is that Dan's conclusion: that The Rolling Stones is an overrated band, is completely understandable if somebody has only ever heard "Satisfaction". Its completely silly if somebody has anything remotely like a broader understanding of The Stones, their music, and popular music as a whole. The kicker is that Dan doesn't.

3. Other examples:

"Killing Me With Obsequiousness", in which Dan explains why "friendly" customer service workers at retail stores are "annoying" because they're disingenuous.

reasons the article is inconsistent and base: customer service personel are not disingenuous simply because they are required to be friendly by their employer. One can earnestly and sincerely do something they are required to do, like spending quality time with your wife(see above). Retail personel existing to make the shoppers life easier; the problem is they aren't doing it Dan's way, which is immensely self-centered. Further, the assertion that "the more focused the customer service the crappier the store" is spoken like somebody who hasn't ever eaten at St. John's and views shopping as merely a consumption experience as opposed to something more esoteric (like getting a great shave & haircut at a classy barbershop, shooting the breeze with the barber).

"Oh, How They Wish That We Ate Oscar Meyer Weiners" in which Dan talks (utterly unintentionally ironically) about his eating habits and his love of Oscar Meyer hotdogs. Which I'm guessing he assumes is funny in and of itself, because he most certainly doesn't attempt any humor in the article. In fact, the only reason I can figure for why this particular article exists was a good buddy gave me a column in his Alternative Weekly and I had to give him something. That, of course, has implications beyond the scope of this blog post.