Customer Reviews

The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

If you have any affection for The Simpsons, I can't recommend more highly John Ortved's oral history of the show, The Simpsons: An Uncensored Unauthorized History.

The book focuses on the creative process that led to the show's miraculous early run, and on the financial windfall that fell upon, and destroyed relationships among, the creators of the show.

Ortved does an effective job of weaving a compelling narrative drawn from previously-published and first-hand interviews. By and large, the narrative remains fixed on the now-legendary writing team (including someone named Conan O'Brien) that was the true heart of the show. You get a real sense of what it must have been like in the writers' room, where this collection of talent, protected from network interference by powerful producer James L. Brooks, was set free to create multi-leveled, satirical, anti-authoritarian, classic television.

I'll tell you what I learned from, or had confirmed by, Ortved's book:

1. Matt Groening's role on the series was quite different from what he, and Fox Television, would have you believe. The heart and soul of the show was, more accurately, its first showrunner, Sam Simon, and its most influential, long-time writer, George Meyer. Meyer's role, in particular, was made quite clear a number of years ago in a fascinating New Yorker profile, but it turns out that, if anything, the earlier magazine article may not have given Meyer his due.

2. Money ruins everything. OK, maybe not if you're the one getting the money. Then how about this - take a beautiful situation, throw a really big bag of money in the middle of the room, and watch everyone turn into animals.

3. The best creative work is made when creative people are left alone. It doesn't always lead to brilliance, but it's certainly more likely to occur. Everything that's best about The Simpsons - its unique voice, its literacy, its complete and utter disrespect for the institutions that we're told are the pillars of society - most times would have been diluted or killed in its sleep by network executives. It doesn't make execs evil; they're just after something - dependable, non-offensive, universally appealing - that's diametrically opposed to the elements that often lead to great art. Think about what's best in television - The Simpsons, The Wire, The Sopranos, Arrested Development, Mad Men, Curb Your Enthusiasm - all of it is unique, outside the box, fiercely idiosyncratic. It's a wonder stuff like this ever sees the light of day. (One of the parodoxes about The Simpsons is that a show this risky at its inception became a virtual money-printing machine.)

I also realized, as I blasted through this book, that one of the things I love most in anything creative is work that is so good that I cannot ever imagine being talented enough to produce it. I understand that some people embrace art that looks and sounds like something they could do - hip hop, punk, and other great art forms are built on the premise of erasing all lines between artist and audience. I get it. But there's just something about being astonished by the talent of others.

The best part of Ortved's book is that it dwells not on the resulting work (there are remarkably few recitations of the best moments on the show) but rather, on the astoundingly talented people who created the show.

The way Ortved has tied together quotes from people formerly part of The Simpsons' inner circle (as well as quotes found in various places by those still working on the show) is very interesting, making the book hard to put down. It's almost like being at a friend's house while her family is arguing-- you know it's none of your business, you don't want this discussion to taint your view of certain members of the family, but for some reason you just can't tune them out. This book is NOT for regular Simpsons fans; it's really for the gossip-loving, People magazine set. It's for people who want to know what was going on with Fox in the late eighties and nineties. And this book definitely should only be read by critical thinkers: it is biased. Big time.

Ortved (and/or his editors) make some pretty glaring mistakes: names of characters are wrong (not just spelling, as in the case of Karl, voiced by Harvey Fierstein in the episode "Simpson and Delilah") but Waylon Smithers is called "Wayland." He doesn't know his Patty from his Selma, and at one point a hilarious spellcheck error occurs where "parody" is the intended word but "parity" is the word used. (I plan to show this one to my students as another reason why they shouldn't place all their trust in spellcheck.) With all these errors, it's hard to trust the author. These mistakes have damaged his credibility, making the fact that there is no context for most of his quotes even harder to take and specious. He places quotes (with no questions and usually no dates attached) in a particular order and manner as if to create conflict and argument between "speakers" when such differing of opinion may or may not exist. For all the reader knows, the words could have been uttered by the speakers ten minutes or ten years apart. For all the reader knows, the quotes were unsolicited rants or grudging responses to leading questions. There is no way to know.

Perhaps most striking about the subjectivity in this book is the degree to which the author overtly dislikes Matt Groening. (As a reader who's never met the author, I should have no idea who at the show he likes and who he doesn't, but I do). Early in the book, Ortved includes quotes by people who have negative things to say about Groening and others who've worked on the show, which in itself is not problematic. It's the continued snide remarks Ortved makes throughout the book that show his personal opinion about Groening that contribute to the damage to his credibility. I also take issue with Ortved talking about the "golden age" of The Simpsons (the seasons they were at their prime) as if it's fact that there actually was one. In fact, he never actually defines "the golden age" for his readers, and frankly, every Simpsons fan I know will tell you different seasons, episodes, maybe even writers, directors, and showrunners (depending on their level of fandom) that were "the best" in their view. It seems Ortved is a self-ordained expert on which writers, showrunners, etc. are/were the best, which isn't fair or right. Friends arguing between themselves about any TV show (or any other work of art) don't allow that kind of "take my word on it" mentality-- if a friend tells me he or she likes certain seasons better than others, they better give their criteria. If I insist on logical, definable criteria from my friends, you better believe I demand them from journalists. And any good journalist should know better than to try to get away with that kind of sloppy subjectivity.

The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History is written in "oral history" style -- the author obviously spent a great deal of time conducting interviews with those who would cooperate and compiling quotes from secondary sources from those who would not(which, as the author freely admits and the title suggests, is nearly everyone involved with The Simpsons.) The result is an interesting look at the forces behind one of the greatest television series of all time. I certainly appreciated the candid assessments of the show's driving forces -- Matt Groening is depicted as a talented guy who hit upon a great idea and has spent years taking personal and financial credit for the hard work of others. Jim Brooks is drawn as a selfish, egotistical, and sometimes spiteful person, but nevertheless someone with the industry power to put The Simpsons on the map. Sim Simon, Conan O'Brien, Richard Sakai -- all are put under the microscope as well.

My biggest problem with the book isn't the oral history -- the quotes are mostly juicy, and the chapters are well put-together, if a bit repetitive -- it's the shoddy writing style and quasi-"fanboy" prose that strings the oral history together. Some of the book is written in journalistic style, with sources to back up assertions. Other parts are written with the author's opinion expressed as fact -- which episodes are good, which are bad, when The Simpsons started its decline. By the same token, the prose is sometimes formal, sometimes informal. Some text almost reads like a post on a Simpsons message board, yet other text reads like a formal essay or magazine article. Examples of each style, pulled from the same section of the book: "episodes like this indicate apathy in The Simpsons' satire" versus "the episode was so lame." So lame? Really? My 9-year-old could have written that.

The book is also riddled with typos. Al Jean becomes Al Jeans. Richard Appel is Richard Apple sometimes. The grammar is often poor, which again made me feel like I was reading a comment on someone's blog. That would be fine for a blog post, but I also don't pay 27 bucks to read message board comments. After a while, I started skipping the author commentary and just reading the quotes.

I hope that the second edition gets another review by the editors.

Amazingly, considering that The Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years now, there has been no official, or authorized, history of the show written. Ortved may have set out to write an authorized history, but it is obvious that he was not getting the cooperation he felt was necessary. As a result he has created an unauthorized history of our favorite family, pulled together from what seems to be extensive sets of interviews with many key people in and around the Simpsons universe as well as pulled from various printed interviews and articles by others who may not have been willing to participate. What results is less of a story, and more of a magic window into the birth and formative first decade of the show. Told by a series of recollections and vignettes, we are taken behind the scenes of the Matt Groening being involved in creating interstitials for the Tracey Ullman Show, the eventual spinoff of the shorts into a full blown show, the show becoming a worldwide phenomenon and the resulting legal wrangling, staff changes and hurt feelings that a mega-success brings.

The lack of participation by many vital players, including Matt Groening himself, necessitates the use of printed comments in the stead of interview comments. The lack of cooperation also frees Ortved from having to be objective in his writing, allowing others to present only one side of the story. It also probably limited his access to some areas, especially within Fox, that might have fleshed out pieces and give some heft to his story. This lack of objectivity allows the author to speak very highly of the first dozen seasons with high praise, milder praise for the next few seasons and then almost outright dismissal of work from the 9th or 10th season on.

That said, the book is extremely entertaining, very informative and eye opening and just a great glimpse into the Juggernaut that is The Simpsons. It is the work of love of a fan who is trying to explain how lightning was captured in a bottle and the focus can be on the overall story, with varying amounts of attention paid to the details. It would have been nice to get a better overview of who everyone is and how they fit together (much of the conflicts that appear involve people who are around for a year or two, are influential and then leave), but since the goal is to produce a history told in individual's recollections and stories rather than in a cohesive narrative, this is not a major issue. While not perfect, the book is a fascinating read of anyone interested in the history of The Simpsons as a show and how Fox became the House that Bart built.

I'm a bit surprised at all the harsh reviews for this book (reviews I largely consider to be overly critical and nit-picky), but I guess I shouldn't be. After all, there's a reason Comic Book Guy was created to lampoon "Simpsons" fans. But to be honest, this book is not without its flaws. I'll get them out of the way first:

1. Yes, there are a few factual mistakes that legions of nerds must have noticed.

2. Poor organization did indeed get on my nerves. I'm referring mostly to latter portions of the book, when Ortved apparently decided to shift from writing more or less in chronological order to organizing sections by topic. For example, why not incorporate the guest stars into the main body of the story?

3. Ortved has an inconsistent voice. He's an objective narrator for most of the book, letting the writers, producers, etc. give their oral history -- but then his paragraphs (in bold, so you know it's him) get bigger and bigger. He beats a dead horse about the lack of subtlety in recent seasons and the loss of overall quality of the show. (John, you're preaching to the choir!) He practically rants about Rupert Murdoch and Fox News. He talks about later "grown up" animated series, such as "South Park," and "Family Guy," but it's hard to tell if he's criticizing them for being "ungrateful children" (his words) or applauding their success.

But despite these three significant flaws, I really enjoyed this book. It offers a good look at the things that made the show great in the early years, and what has made it not so great in the many years to follow. We get to hear from writers (including Conan!), cast members, and guests directly, and producers who didn't want to be involved are still represented in their very own words through things they've said during interviews over the years.(Nit-picky mistakes aside, Ortved obviously did a lot of research.) The book also offers a nice reminder (or lesson, for younger readers) of just how big a deal "The Simpsons" was when it first aired -- from Bart Mania and Black Bart to the shock of the first gay prime time cartoon character to Bush Sr.'s proclaimed preference for the Waltons.

What's probably most enticing to "Simpsons" geeks such as yourself (and if you've read this far, it's likely that you fit the description) are the little factoids and anecdotes you'll learn from those involved. You'll learn from "The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History" that Matt Groening wasn't quite the driving creative force behind the show that he's been made out to be, that current producer Al Jean is smart enough to have received a degree from Harvard but stupid enough to think the 14th season was just as good as the 4th, that the creation of the Dr. Hibbert character was the result of our favorite family competing in the same time slot as Bill Cosby (you know, the other laughing black doctor who wore goofy sweaters), and that Nancy Cartwright is a big-time Scientologist.

Except I guess you won't really learn those things from the book because you just read them here.

(Annoyed grunt!)

Lee "Hell Hole" Fooks

Since you're a dedicated Simpsons fan, you're gonna buy it anyway, right? Just be aware that the tone is quite negative in the book. Instead of taking what might be a more proper journalistic stance, the author frequently eschews objective critique and reporting just the opinions of others for his own viewpoint. At times, this feels less like a history and more like a soapbox for the author to explain why he thinks the show is not as good in its later years. While the journey is interesting, the tone is quite off-putting.

While I won't deny I learned a lot of interesting things about the history and creation of the show from Ortved's book, it's pitched as something else entirely. If you're looking for anything really juicy, or hoping he airs any of their dirty laundry, well look elsewhere. The story of Sam Simon's leaving may not be well known, and he covers the roles Groening and the other showrunners have had well, but these aren't dark secrets.

Everything that might be considered uncensored or unauthorized, any juicy quote he gets, is immediately followed up by a splash of praise. So while someone may point out Sam Simon was a jerk, they're quick to add he was a genius anyways. Groening may take all the credit, but gosh, he's just such a nice guy. And for all the later season Simpsons bashing Ortved pumps throughout the book, the last chapter is 20+ pages of unashamed praising. Giving everyone who decided to participate against Fox/Brooks/Groening's wishes a chance to redeem themselves. In the words of Groundskeeper Willie, "shut up boy, do you want to get sued?"

At times, the writing style is extremely amateurish. Lazy too. There are lots of typos.

Most annoyingly, he presents all his opinions as cold, hard facts. Making sweeping judgments of episodes, seasons, or other series as if his view is the only accurate one and accepted globally. It gives the book the overwhelming stench of cynicism and snark. Because you look cooler if you talk down about something that is popular, something you liked when it first started. I bet he liked *Nsync when they were underground too. It's OK to be biased, but just present it as your opinion and not as fact.

He tries to frame it more at a look of how great comedy is created, and so on. Generally, it fails in most aspects. Any laughs I got out the book were from the Simpsons gags it brought up (OK, the one Stephen Hawking anecdote made me laugh), and not from any stories he got or grazed from previous interviews.

It's a letdown. You're better off poking around the internet or listening the episode commentaries to get the same stories.

Someday, somewhere, a talented writer will write *the* standard history of The Simpsons. One that incorporate comments and narrative from all of the important cast members, writers and producers in prose form, rather than that most lazy of all non-fiction genres (other than the memoir), the "oral history."

Ortved's book is a slapdash, shallow piece of fanboy drivel that demonstrates *why* he's unauthorized. None of the important cast members or producers would talk to him, so he had to rely on magazine and Internet quotes. He does very little to factually reconcile the often conflicting, self-serving credit-snatching and blame-tossing the show's producers and FOX executives serve up in heaping piles. His choice of interview subjects is questionable (why do we care about hearing from production assistance who are grabbing for their little bit of attention? Why do we need Jennifer Tilly, ex-wife of Sam Simon?)

The editing is atrocious. The fact-checking is non-existing. The errors are so frequent and outrageous that you have to laugh. Example: he constantly refers to Jennifer Tilly as a "World Series of Poker Champion" and claims that she won the championship and even provided a URL. Well, guess what: WSOP has more than 30 events, and the only one Tilly ever won was the Ladies Event, which is considered by most to be a total joke event (most of the good women players avoid it because its payouts are too low compared to the other events they play in). She certainly was not the "WSOP Champion."

This is pure, unadulterated slop, written by a hack who has very little to offer other than a medium for mostly angry, less important Simpsons alum to grind their axes.

There are a number of huge problems with this book.

1) Aside from attacks on one or two people, the book is full of "he's such a genius" quotes from people who are still in the industry and have no desire to burn any bridges. Everybody is super funny, everybody is wonderful to work with...blah blah blah.

2) It's written in a very repetitive style. Lots of quotes are redundant and feel as if they are added simply for page count.

3) There are very few revelations. Hollywood changes people, it's all about the money, network executives stink etc..etc...none of this should be new to anybody.

In short, it's just not a book that has any real insight into, well, anything.

This is an unauthorized biography of "The Simpsons". It's also unedited, un-impartial, and a really fun read. In style and tone this reminds me quite a bit of Live From New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live, as Told By Its Stars, Writers and Guests, although not nearly as comprehensive. For one thing, where "The Simpsons" is concerned, author John Ortved is clearly a fanboy rather than an outside investigator.

Nothing wrong with his being a fanboy, of course: the front cover of the book is a takeoff of the ever-rotating Bart Simpson chalkboard gag from the show's opening credits, so you know this book is kind of tongue-in-cheeck. Ortved does not pretend to be anything less than a fan, and as such (like Comic Book Guy), he's clearly giving us his own agenda rather than some Platonic truth. He defines his own personal "golden age" of the show, demarcates the moments when the show ceased to engage him (Season 8), and gets several of the show writers from that golden age to admit they neither watch nor like the show anymore. This is then a history of the early years only, winding up sometime in 1998.

The earliest chapters, describing the show's genesis, are perhaps the most interesting: I don't think this material has all been assembled into a coherent narrative form before. Matt Groening is the subject of the first chapter, and Ortved gives him due deference as one of the show's fathers. However, Ortved also goes back and gives equal time to the other two who "created" the show: writer/producer/Hollywood mogul James L. Brooks, and veteran TV scribe & show-runner Sam Simon. The media spent a lot of time painting Groening as the front man (and sole creative vision), and Groening gets some heat for not sharing the credit.

Similarly there's a brief history of the creation of the FOX Network in the late '80s, setting the stage for just how "The Simpsons" managed to become an upstart hit in an otherwise starchy TV landscape.

While Ortved sprinkles the book liberally with opinions about which episodes of the show are praiseworthy, and why the show deserves such scorn today, he's also writing an oral history and as such does a good job assembling a lineup of behind-the-scene figures, "Simpsons" guest stars, and scholarly observers. There are interviews with people who were there during the pre-"Simpsons" years: Art Spiegelman sheds some light on Groening's early years as an underground cartoonist, and many early FOX TV executives describe what it was like to start up a network. We hear from a lot of the original show writers (including a lot of material from Conan O'Brien); observations from noteable guest voices like Steven Tyler and Stan Lee and Tom Wolfe; and analysis from others who have built on the success of "The Simpsons", such as Matt Stone of "South Park" and Seth MacFarlane of "Family Guy" (and every other Sunday night FOX animated program).

There is sloppy copy-editing, and the transition between impartial history and Ortved's attempted but occasionally sophomoric critical analysis is a bit awkward. On the whole this didn't detract from my reading experience, since Ortved's opinions aren't too off from my own. Your mileage may vary. Still, for any "Simpsons" fans there's a lot of material worth reading that isn't perhaps yet widely known.