Comments on Deaf, Dumb, and Blind

a bad joke repeated is still a bad joke

I would have much enjoyed a realistic review - the thesis of your letter - than that stupid joke review.

Given "our" complete and utter obsession w/ celebrity these days (major news breaking in w/ Paris Back to Jail stories, Britney's flabby booty and bad hair extentions, etc.), you missed an opportunity to write something of substance and relative to current events.

Just sayin...

Wow, you really showed him.

Do you have his permission to post his email address on your site?

i agree with #1. this one just wasn't funny...

better luck next time.

Josh really got me one time. I think it was the Queer Issue 2001, and he wrote a piece bitching that he was never going to win the Pulitzer Prize for writing about GLBT civil rights when Vermont's Rutland Herald had just one the Pulitzer Prize for their in-depth coverage of then uber-controversial civil unions.

I must have been pissy about that for at least a week and I think wrote him a very cross e-mail to that effect. Never did find out if he was joking, but I've come to expect a touch of sarcastic, high-fiving "humor" from Mr. Feit.

Josh Feit, I'll haunt your dreams.

Self-indulgent review and recap.

Oh Josh Feit. Personally I've enjoyed reading the whole Tommy Review Saga. Journalists Are Friends, Not Food.

Naturally I meant "won."

Oh frak. There goes my shot at winning the Pulitzer Prize for Slog-commenting.

I was fooled by Josh's review and I've been reading his stuff since he started writing for the Stranger.

Josh, the cry-room at the back of the Village Theater is a nice multi-concrete experience with looking through glass, piped in noise, and of course babies. Try that next time.

It wasn't a bad joke, it just wasn't well-written, which isn't such a big deal; even talented writers misfire, and it isn't like he got anybody killed or anything. Mark it up, shrug and move on.

Josh is basking in his own bad joke glow at the moment.

I seriously doubt anyone outside The Stranger bullpen (with the possible exception of one or two commentors whose "comedy threshhold" would seem to be set somewhere below "watching a guy get repeatedly kicked in the balls") would, even in the most charitable of circumstances, have described Josh's "review", and the resulting brouhaha as anything remotely resembling "hilarious".

I think the brouhaha is much more amusing than the original "joke."

The retardation continues.

Hey Josh, still trying to dig your way out of screwing the pooch? You blew it royally, you know you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted this "follow-up"

My suggestion, let it go. You can't defend the fact that your little "joke" fell like a lead turd.

ecce homo: you are SO dumb that it's tempting to think that you're joking. otherwise, i'm just really sad for you.

Josh. Learn to use the apostrophe. It is your bread and butter.

When you have to repeatedly explain that a piece was satire...

Still have the guys personal email address published in public huh?

Pretty crappy move dude.

Hmmm . . . I didn't find anywhere where Pete Townshend actually said "Townshend wrote Tommy because he was freaked out by the fact that rock was turning teens into zombie fans."
However, I did find these actual quotes from Townshend - "Everything that I had done creatively related to two or three incidents that happened to me when I was a child that I'd forgotten. Everything, absolutely everything. Certainly all of "Tommy". And it was a real bone of contention when we came to argue the creative split based on the sweat factor with the other members of the Who. When I said it's autobiographical, you know, they said: "No it's not, we all played a part in writing the story". I was absolutely adamant: "No you fucking didn't, this came out of my subconscious, that's one place you can't have contributed to." and "There were pop songs that seem to me to be a kind of divine adulthood. So "Tommy" is about that."

But why worry about facts when you've written such a clever, biting satire . . . that you keep having to explain. Let's leave the theatre reviewing to Brendan Kiley . . .