Customer Reviews

Kissing Bill O'Reilly, Roasting Miss Piggy: 100 Things to Love and Hate About TV

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

You have to love a well known award-winning critic, who is willing to praise Aaron Spelling and pan M*A*S*H. Of course he also takes the time to take down such icons as the Smother's Brothers, who in my opinion have been foisted upon the American public as the be all and end all of high brow political commentary (try sitting thru tapes of some of those old shows.) I was especially floored by the chapter about Vengeance Unlimited -- an obscure show starring Michael Madsen -- which Tucker very accurately calls one of the most underrated shows of the '90s. Anyone who is that on point with his comments is worth listening to. I certainly didn't agree with everything in the book -- but my Spider-sense is that was the point. This book is interesting and well written and Tucker is not afraid to go out on a limb and tick people off. There's alot to both love and hate about that kind of approach. Whether you love or hate TV you will love this book.

I'm all in favor of silly, irreverant books, but this book is just so pointless. The author doesn't show any skill as a writer...it could basically have been anyone off the street making claims like "I hate TV animals...but I love Salem the cat from 'Sabrina, the Teenage Witch.'" This book reads like a stream of concious exercise done by a ninth grader.

Who cares?

He doesn't say anything really interesting or eye-opening about why he does or doesn't like anything. For his analysis of "Full House" (which he loved), all he did was sum up the show, then claim it wasn't self-important. And, as some others have written, some of the items seem to contradict each other. He loves the "loamy schlock" of "Full House," but hates the "corny, artificial"-ness of "The Brady Bunch."

Once again, WHO CARES?

I really did not enjoy this book at all, which is strange, because this is the type of book I usually love. Part of the problem is the writing style, which is really hard to read. Tucker loves to use long strings of hyphenated adjectives (he's a long-hyphenated-adjective-using author), and constructs sentences in complex ways that sometimes require two or three readings.

Note to Tucker (and former fellow Entertainment Weekly critic Owen Gleiberman): It's possible to write great reviews in a conversational style. See Roger Ebert.

Anyway, seems like Tucker is going for shock value with a lot of his choices. Being indifferent about "M*A*S*H" I might be able to understand, but despising it? How, when the airwaves are littered with stuff that's so much worse? Tucker borders on unhealthful hatred of "The Brady Bunch," even ending that section of the book with that worst of four-letter words directed at the harmless show.

As a longtime "The Price is Right" fan, I was confused by his abhorrence of that show. He disses "TPIR" for refusing to admit that it's cheesy and exploitative, but on the very next page, he praises infomercials? What?

In addition, I found quite a few silly typos.

I think Tucker was just trying to spark a reaction with this book, but it's really not worth it.

Yes, my review is one star, only because Amazon doesn't have zero.

This is the type of book you would expect from some internet self-publishing site. The fact that St. Martins Press greenlighted this project casts serious doubt on their judgment.

The factual errors are mind-boggling. Sorry, Ken, Hans Conreid did NOT narrate Fractured Fairy Tales on Bullwinkle. Actors Gaillard Sartain and Richard Moll are NOT dead as of this writing (August 2005), so they were probably alive in 2004 when you wrote this book as well. Actress Jane Curtin does not spell her last name as in the "curtain" you hang from a rod. Johnny Carson did NOT do the Tonight Show for 31 years (it was 29 and a half). Jack Benny's famous reply to "Your money or your life!" was "I'm thinking, I'm thinking!"...not "I'm thinking it over." Michael McKean did NOT participate in Spinal Tap before Laverne & Shirley. You only missed that one by a decade. Batman did NOT premiere on ABC in 1964. You're getting closer, it was 1966. The word "forgotten" is spelled with an "e" at the end; not an "o." The detective on Miami Vice was Tubbs; not Stubbs. And is an "informercial" the same thing as an infomercial?

These are factual and grammatical errors I found by reading perhaps HALF the book. It is categorized by stupid "love-hate categories, so it's easy to skip over shows or genres you don't care about. But I now know that Mr. Tucker, who somehow manages occasional employment by respectable magazines, LOVES Ricky Nelson, "Full House," Aaron Spelling, Simon Cowell, Richard Hatch, "Silk Stalkings," Lisa Bonet, and "Welcome Back Kotter,"
but HATES "M*A*S*H," Johnny Carson, "The Price Is Right," "Mystery Science Theater," "Family Guy," and PBS. Talk about being out of touch with the reading public. He bounces all over the place, flinging his mindless meanderings toward the wall, but in the end, nothing sticks.

This book adds nothing to anyone's perspective of TV. There's no depth, or new information here. Apparently Mr. Tucker spent a couple weeks spewing out a like/dislike list, and a gullible publisher sent this one to press without editing, fact-checking, or apparently any regard to buyer appeal. I get the feeling someone got called on the carpet for this one. It's inexcusable.

Having been a longtime reader of ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, I often read Ken Tucker when he was the TV critic. While I didn't always agree with him, he was a good writer.

KISSING BILL O'REILLY is a collection of "Love it / Hate it" essays about one hundred things about TV that he either loves or hates. While it is a fun read, I have to say some of his choices, especially for the hate sections, are just plain odd.

For example, he spends a couple pages saying how LAUGH IN was overrated and that HEE HAW is a better show. Now, I don't hate HEE HAW as much as most, but even I would say that is off.

Among the other surprising hates, STAR TREK in all forms (and he also says he has never seen an entire episode since he watched it stoned while in high school. How can you judge a show you've never seen?), MASH, A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS, SNL writer Michael O'Donoghue, the days when MTV played videos, and many more.

He seems to have particular contempt for Generation X (especially writer Chuck Klosterman whose book SEX, DRUGS, AND COCOA PUFFS is a lot more fun than this one) and their love of nostalgic TV viewing of 70's and 80's shows, yet he goes on and on about his own nostalgia, of OZZIE AND HARRIET and ABBOT AND COSTELLO.

Still, the book is a fun read, if only to make you want to argue his choices or point out a lot of his inaccuracies (In an Edie Falco essay, he says that she appeared in two of Hal Hartley's "male-menopausal films". Has he even seen a Hal Hartley film??? That doesn't make the least bit of sense.)

But, your final thought upon reading the book is "How much did he get paid for that? I could have written the same thing!"

American television has been the most maligned, beat-up form of entertainment in modern memory, and why not: a venue that makes stars out of people like Ray Romano, Carson Daly, and countless "Real World" contestants deserves all the ridicule heaped upon it. But generally, most TV critics can do more than simply say "this sucks".

Ken Tucker, a veteran of "Entertainment Weekly" and "New York Magazine", is generally what I would consider one of the better writers when it comes to television criticism. But you wouldn't know that from his book. Slapping together 100 essays about TV with no rhyme or reason does not a coherent book make. Tucker defends his decision as an aesthetic one, but you wouldn't be alone if you thought his actual reason was laziness.

That said, the book is interesting in spite of its flaws: Tucker shows the same wit, knowledge, and grasp of the medium that made his EW reviews so perfect to read. Sure, he beats the same drums that a lot of critics seem to obsess over: "The Sopranos", "Twin Peaks", etc. But Tucker's best wit shines through on his more unexpected choices: who would think a reputable critic would not only love the trashiness of "Silk Stalkings" or Pam Anderson's, um, "body of work", but say so in print?

All in all, Tucker's problem is not his opinions (which, agree or disagree, are his own and that's why he wrote the book), but the simple laziness of the formatting. Back to Tucker's explanation: in the intro, he cites the "clicker" nature of TV watching as being a motivator for the "Love/Hate" Point/Counterpoint nature of his book. Which is fine, if more of the Love/Hates had actually been connected. Tucker goes from one point of praising Jennifer Garner's wig choice on "Alias" to slamming "Star Trek" (deservedly singled out as one of the worst franchises in the history of entertainment). But why? There's no logical reason to do so, even within the "anything goes" boundaries of Tucker's original clicker thesis. This causes an abrupt break from one essay to another. Though sometimes Tucker can actually find a connection between the "Love/Hates" (such as his praise for "Newsradio" while blasting Dave Foley's former job as a Kid In the Hall), they are few and far between.

All of which means that this is a good book, one that you'll enjoy reading over an afternoon perhaps, but it's not "great". And, for anyone familiar with Tucker's more expansive EW reviews (the essays here rarely go over two pages in length), the short little takes leave you wanting more, and disappointed. Surely there's a better book to be salvaged from this mess? If Tucker had somehow organized his book more throughly, perhaps even introducing the concept of chapters and various other topics included without too much expansion, this might be worthy of more praise. I'm not looking for Tucker to contribute a "Lipstick Traces"-esque history of television, but his review of "Buffalo Bill" and "Profit" provide a nice glimpse into the tastes and preferences that make Tucker a fantastic read on most other occasions.

The fact is, this is a good book hampered by the gimmick that may very well have led to its conception. Ken Tucker is a better writer than "Kissing Bill O'Reilly, Roasting Miss Piggy" suggests, but he did himself a disservice with the anything-goes formatting and pace. Intended as quick hits to keep readers from getting bored, it instead often goes by too quickly without leaving much of an impression. Maybe Tucker wanted to steer clear of serious criticism in favor of flighty reader-friendly takes instead. It's a shame, because the result is more scatter-brained than it should have been.

Ken Tucker's "Kissing Bill O'Reilly, Roasting Miss Piggy" is a collection of short pieces about 100 things the critic either loves or hates about television. Tucker's long, intricate (but always clear), witty sentences are a joy to read. He doesn't talk down to you (which is an occupational hazard for many TV critics.) This may be the most entertaining book of TV criticism since Harlan Ellison's legendary The Glass Teat. Tucker appreciates great art no matter where he finds it; he says that he needs to acknowledge that he has "been nourished as much by 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' as the novels of Philip Roth." As far as I am concerned, this statement hits the bull's-eye (and I speak as a big fan of both Roth and Buffy.) Even more remarkable, Tucker proclaims upfront his status as a "politically progressive member of the east-coast media elite": but he doesn't let his politics get in the way of judging a thing's quality (a true rarity indeed.) Among the surprising targets on his "hate" list are: Ed Asner's "Lou Grant", "The West Wing", "MASH", "Barney Miller", "The Tonight Show", the Smothers Brothers, Edward R. Murrow, "Saturday Night Live", "Family Guy", "Mystery Science Theater 3000", PBS, and "Little House on the Prairie." On the "love" list: Jennifer Garner's red wig, David Caruso, MTV's "The Real World", "NewsRadio", "Cops", "Full House", Aaron Spelling, "Homicide: Life on the Street", Bill O'Reilly, David Duchovny, "Roseanne", Homer Simpson's alcoholism, "Pardon the Interruption", "Laverne and Shirley", "Twin Peaks", and "The Waltons." Nearly every page of this book provides something to delight or infuriate you. Indifference is definitely not Tucker's problem. He shows a lot of guts, especially by allowing the hideous, funny Drew Friedman caricature of him to be on the cover.

This book by the EW critic has an interesting premise--he lists something he loves about TV, then something corresponding that he hates. For example, he loves Simon Cowell but hates American Idol.

The irony is that every reader will love/hate this book because some of his opinions are so infuriating you can hardly believe that someone with any type of reputation would be willing to put such silly statements into print. Meanwhile, he says some things so dead right-on that you cheer that someone finally had the guts to write it.

It was fun to hear a serious adult say he loves Full House and TGIF shows--but in the next section he slices apart The Brady Bunch and then throughout the book mentions how the Brady Bunch is the one show he "loathes" the most.

His deep hatred of Star Trek would be acceptable except that at the end he mentions that the last time he saw the show was when he was high on drugs in high school! How can we take him seriously when he hasn't recently gone back to view an episode?

He also mentions along the way that he dislikes the phrase "jump the shark." Yet his book is filled with examples of when he feels a TV show went wrong--so maybe he's just jealous that he didn't think up the phrase.

Ultimately how can you like a TV writer who "loves Richard Hatch" and praises NewsRadio while saying he "hates" Charlie Brown Christmas, the Tonight Show, M*A*S*H and The Smothers Brothers. It's one thing to say shows are over-rated (which would be true of most of those he hates) but to go so far as to say he "hates" something as innovative at the time as Laugh-In reveals a person who doesn't have a proper perspective of the TV world.

And then you turn the page and find a right-on analysis that must have been embarrassing to write, such as stating that Ramona was the greatest kids TV show of all time (I'd place it right up there with Fudge) or admitting his love of trashy Silk Stalkings.

This book has a very skeptical tone to it that doesn't usually come across as hardened in the author's reviews in EW. He loves the stupid and rebellious (Roseanne, Homer Simpson, Laverne & Shirley) and hates any male that shows compassion (the dads on Brady Bunch, Little House and Courtship of Eddie's Father). From now on when I read his magazine's criticisms I'll take them with a grain of salt. But I admire his guts and appreciate that someone would put his reputation on the like to defend what other critics would call fluff--so he gets an extra star to make it above average. I will continue to have a love/hate relationship with this writer who loves and hates TV.

and Edward R. Murrow was a hack. Trying to be provocative without backing up your opinions is downright pathetic. Among other mistakes, this book praises O'Reilly for the EXACT SAME reasons it insults Murrow. A waste of 20 minutes at the bookstore.

This book is badly written, badly edited, and badly in need of being tossed in the garbage...Which is where my copy is now.