The Fish
for 22 September 1997. Updated every WEEKDAY.
Suck Staff

Joey Anuff
Joey Anuff


Terry Colon
Terry Colon
Art Director


Ana Marie Cox
Ana Marie Cox
Executive Editor


[John 'too tall' Pike]
John Pike
Production Manager


Heather Havrilesky
Heather Havrilesky
Senior Editor


[Copy Edit]
Copy Edit

Suck Alumni
Suck Alumni Text

Carl Steadman
Carl Steadman


Sean (Duuuuude) Welch
Sean Welch


Owen Thomas
Owen Thomas
Copy Editor


T. Jay Fowler

Production Manager

& Ass Kicker


Matt Beer
Matt Beer
Development Manager

In the Lyne of Pale Fire

As much as you already know
this, you are right. While I
haven't seen the movie, or
even heard about it, anyone
thinking Lolita is some sort
of "let's look at child
molestation from another
point of view" argument is an

Is it a brilliantly written


The narrative entwines the
reader with "it's so
disgusting I cannot look, but
it's so disgusting I MUST
look" content that keeps the
makers of Friday the 13th,
Part 1000
in bank. I know, I
know, it's more than that -
but let's not get into that.

The true brilliance of the
book is vaguely in the middle
when the reader is no longer
repulsed by Humbert - but
instead, is intrigued by the
story. "What's going to
happen to them next?" "Are
they going to make it?" "Will
she ever love him as much as
he loves her?" Don't deny
that this is what happens. It
explains why so many have
read the book ALL THE WAY
THROUGH. Because Nabokov has
tricked us into believing HIS
story - the ultimate goal of
any author.

But even Nabokov can't fool
us all of the time, and we
suddenly remember, "He's a
fucking child molester!" and
our heads hurt.

Apparently Mr. Lyne can be
fooled all of the time.

Pete Garvey

Well, making the monster
human is the reason Nabokov
chose the more sympathetic
first-person POV to tell the
story. But sympathies don't
make a crime less a crime,
which is what makes Lyne's
comments all the more
obnoxious. Humbert's
rationalizing and twisting of
morality make him more
sympathetic, but Nabokov
himself had no trouble in
referring to him in writing
as simply a "pervert."

Furious George

Fish With Letter Icon

The only event more annoying
than the release of a Jim
Carrey movie or a Disney
direct-to-video is the
trumped-up "news" of yet
another remake of yet another
tired tale. Sweet Jesus!
There are a million moments
of blinding revelation in the
naked city, give or take the
comings and goings from the
Kennedy compound. Can't an
auteur find a less obvious
way to make 100 million bucks
than backing his steamroller
over the same tired corpse?
If Lyne needs to burn with a
hard, gem like flame, I'll
get him started on his next
project: There's this giant,
invisible bunny, see? Uh,
makes itself visible to one
man! k.d.lang! Maybe the
whole idea isn't there yet,
but it's nothing a good spin
doctor couldn't handle.

Warren Fick

Good pitch. Only, the bunny
will have to be Canadian and
addicted to crack. This is
Hollywood we're talking
about, not Slamdance. Replace
k.d. lang with John Travolta
and we've got a real winner
on our hands. Bulletproof!

Furious George

Fish With Letter Icon

Well done: Adrian Lyne is a
second-, nay, third-rate
director (do they really
exist?) who tried to up the
art-tit-istic ante only to
fall on his face. Can the
maker of Flashdance and Indecent
possibly do any
justice to one of the
greatest novels of our modern
times? I don't think so.
That, as you mention, Lyne
missed the point of the novel
is enough to can the fucking
flick out of respect for Mr.
Nabokov (although his son
supports Lyne, ACK!). Maybe
he should have cast Sharon
Stone as Lolita - that would
have gotten him distribution.

Theo Diamantis

Actually, the quote I read
from Nabokov's son upon
seeing the film was
"Stunning." That can be read
as positive, but you can also
stun someone with a hammer.
Who knows? Lyne will
undoubtedly make the film
beautiful to look at - he's
not completely without talent
- but Nike commercials and
Triumph of the Will look
nice, too.

Furious George

Fish With Letter Icon

Royal Icing

This whole hoorah about one
spoiled, possibly misused (by
Chuck POW) woman went all too
far. She did elect to keep
poor company, went riding in
a car that was driven by a
drunken fool ... who was on
the payroll of a wimpy
overstuffed Arab who could
not even control his
emotions, or the very driver
whose salary he was paying
... 121 mph is
unconscionable, in any
setting as far as safety
goes. I feel badly for the
young lads who have to suffer
living even longer among
those in-bred Capulet
wannabes.... Keep on with
the vision of stark reality,
please ... peace or death ...
Christopher D. McCoy ...

Keeping poor company doesn't
generally kill people - or
most of your friends would be
dead by now.

Fish With Letter Icon

Your essay has Pulitzer
written all over it. This
makes it sort of hard to
read, but in a good way.

During last week's homecoming
festival for the Royal
Signifier, I found myself
thinking of Cindy Sherman. In
the years before Lady Di and
Madonna burbled into the
limelight, Sherman began
taking pictures of herself;
her idea, she said, was to
"make other people recognize
something of themselves
rather than me."

She failed miserably,
utterly. As her photos become
more abstract, like grotesque
still lifes, spectators
profess liking the photos in
which they're sure some part
of her body appears.
Unsurprisingly, this is also
the same criterion collectors
are applying when gauging
what to offer for her work.

Why? Maybe because one's
instinct when viewing
multiple images of the same
person is to look for
similarities, for
consistency, for the
recognizable. Psychologists
call it confirmation bias,
and anyone attempting to
alter one's identity can't
win. All the pieces have to

Just goes to show you what a
bonehead Eliot was about that
"extinction of personality"
snuff ... er, stuff.

Now Madonna sponsors a
retrospective of Sherman's
film stills, and, like the
critics in Woody Allen's
Stardust Memories, everybody
pretty much agrees they like
this early work best.
Meanwhile, Sherman proceeds
further and further into
grotesque transfigurations.
Oh yeah - and then there's
her soon-to-be-released film
Office Killer, in which Carol
Kane spends a lot of time
disposing of bodies in
interesting ways.

Hmm.... Now I'm thinking
Cindy Sherman's career
trajectory sounds a lot like
that of Suck itself.

Not that this has fuck-all to
do with your essay, which was

Tom Dowe

Pulitzer? I'd settle for a
giant Death Ray Machine. If
there is a committee that
grants those, please recommend
me to them. Especially
because Cindy Sherman is
probably on it.


Fish With Letter Icon

Subject: Royal Icing

Enjoyed your article, "Royal

Invective (and wit) reminded
me of Juvenal.

Regards, Frank M

That's what Ana said - that
it was juvenile. Oh well,
"Talent perhaps I lack, but
anger's an inspiration ... I
must cover it all in this
olio, everything human."
Excuse me while I go butter


Fish With Letter Icon

The Stuff -- it's a list of stuff we like

Little link to Suck
Arrow Image
Contacting Us
Contributors Index
Little Barrel Link
Little Gun Link
A machine producing Suck
Link To Tech Notes