Comments on: How Prince Prigio was Deserted by Everybody

By: Ray Davis

Ray Davis — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:54:32 +0000

And I, of course, was being ironic in both my paragraphs addressed to you. Ha! I pump most irony! I trump! Assuming… um…. Guys? You weren’t being ironic in your replies, were you? Oh, jeez. Forget it. Bob, I also recommend Captain Slaughterboard’s Yellow Beast and Cap’n Pissgums’s Pervert Pirates as sidetrackers in these, our troubled times.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:17:03 +0000

I was, of course, being ironic when I said I didn’t understand the moral, as anyone who understands the moral would have to be. It was the husband-and-wife stuff I didn’t understand, but that is nothing new. A beautiful edition of what looks to be a funny and clever story, which I would have finished, had I not gotten sidetracked by Captain Cook’s Tahitian.

By: jholbo

jholbo — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:16:24 +0000

Oh, I KNOW it’s related, Ray. I was being ironic when I said I was being ironic. Now THAT’s cleared up.

By: Ray Davis

Ray Davis — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:16:00 +0000

I’m glad you liked the edition, John, but I’m sorry: you’re wrong that it’s unrelated. Bob, happily, readers who don’t understand the moral have no need to. It’s one of those “if you have to ask, you can’t afford it” deals.

By: jholbo

jholbo — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:37:23 +0000

Oh, NOW it shows up. We’ll just see whether this comment shows up, too. Just a test.

By: jholbo

jholbo — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:20:02 +0000

I should have called the post “Why I Am So Clever”, as I originally intended. (Brooks Zarathustra reference.) My point was just that the man seems oddly torn as to whether he wishes to appear clever or not. But really my point was just that Ray has produced a beautiful online edition of a funny book, with nice illustrations. And I wanted people to go see it. As to Brooks and Dowd. You might say: Dowd bites man is hardly a story at this point. So man bits Dowd is not an appealing role in which to cast oneself. Brooks is on a steep slide into Dowdiness, which is still marginally newsworthy. As to bob’s fair point about the blogosphere. It is true that Brooks has written something that is, in form, rather like the things I write. A twisty, semi-autobiographical, seriously ironical reflection about something that is possibly a reflection about nothing. But I don’t expect the NYT to put me on their op-ed page, where space is at a premium. There are times and places for everything. Blogs can be more baggy and indulgent and loping without the while thing looking inappropriate. And if the NYT is going to publish stuff like this, they ought to insist that Brooks write only seriously very funny pieces like this. So say I. Oh, and as to the wise moral of the story. I was being a bit ironic.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:17:42 +0000

I skipped to the end, and read the last chapter, but I just don’t understand the moral. The blogosphere a very strange place to teach the virtues of intellectual self-effacement. I likely have proved my first assertion with my second. Did I mention that I wasn’t married?

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:39:55 +0000

Hey, at least he didn’t call for somebody to please assassinate David Broder.

By: John Davies

John Davies — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:33:02 +0000

Well, alright then. Carry on.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:29:30 +0000

Because it’s Tuesday. Dowd isn’t published on Tuesdays.

By: John Davies

John Davies — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:07:24 +0000

It reads to me like every one on Maureen Dowd’s columns. Why aren’t you criticizing her?