October 22, 2001

10:46 AM

Someone (in this case, Steven Zeitchik of the [What's Left of] Online Journalism Review) finally has the guts to say it: The post-911 Onion isn't funny. It's preachy, obvious, desperate to give off the impression that it's still ironic without actually being so ... but not funny. Unfortunately, it doesn't delve into the intriguing psychological question of why so many were so eager to laud its return when it's never really returned at all, but hey, it's not the Online Psychology Review, now is it?
posted by aaron (61 comments total)

Apparently those of us who found the first post-911 funny didn't reallynot find it funny.

That said (a) the "American Life Turned into Bad Jerry Bruckheimer Movie" article was, in fact, not funny, and (b) the issues since that first one have been pretty lame.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 10:53 AM on October 22, 2001

Sorry, bad itallic tags. That first sentence should read "Apparently those of us who found the first post-911 issue funny didn't really find it funny, we just didn't have the guts to not find it funny.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 10:54 AM on October 22, 2001

yawn
posted by gwint at 10:55 AM on October 22, 2001

I didn't not find it unfunny until recently when I started not laughing at what wasn't in it. Or not.

I thought the Jerry Bruckheimer article was very good. Thought-provoking while still humorous.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:57 AM on October 22, 2001

somebody has way too much time on their hands, if the pointless journalism finger is going to be pointed I think Steve-o needs to start casting glances at his own piece first
posted by efullerton at 10:59 AM on October 22, 2001

I have only one problem with this article, albeit a rather fundamental one. Everything he thought wasn't funny, I thought was funny. I mean, he criticizes the Onion for stupid humor. Duh?!?! Isn't the Onion all about stupid humor? That's why it's funny.
posted by bob bisquick at 11:00 AM on October 22, 2001

actually, i thought that issue was honest enough to not be a total laff riot. made sense: 911 wasn't funny. reminded me of whoopi goldberg's early standup material: funny anecdotal pieces leading to poignant closure. everything else that's tried to be funny about the attacks has been so very not.
posted by patricking at 11:03 AM on October 22, 2001

Close italics.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:04 AM on October 22, 2001

yawn
posted by gwint at 10:55 AM PST on October 22

I look forward to more of your cogent analysis.

Count me as someone who thought that they've held up their end pretty damn well. Comedy is a living bitch to write even in non-up-fucked times, and I am of the opinion that the Onion has hit way more than they've missed in the aftermath of the Great Big Obvious Event.

Besides, anyone who publishes the following line deserves some sort of medal:

Making America Safer
Americans to wear t-shirts bearing likeness of Osama bin Laden with phrase "Fuck you asshole," so if bin Laden sees one, he'll know he's an asshole and can get fucked
posted by Skot at 11:05 AM on October 22, 2001

"Call me humorless (and I'm sure there are a few Onion editors doing that right now), and maybe I am a little less inclined to laugh these days, but I'm just not sure the issues were as brilliant as everyone says they were."

You are humorless, you are less inclined to laugh these days, and you are not sure the issues were as brilliant as everyone says they were.

Good luck in your college editorial debate class!
posted by Down10 at 11:06 AM on October 22, 2001

I think the article suffered from not so elegant writing. He repeated everything over and over again. Some stuff was funny, but overall it wasn't. Slap a "worthy" title "Has Onion dried up?" and there you go.

I thought some of it was funny, I didn't get the life turns into a bad jerry bruckheimer movie or the cake baking one.
posted by tiaka at 11:06 AM on October 22, 2001

Down10: Amen.
posted by mad at 11:09 AM on October 22, 2001

Kafkaesque: Not The Worst.Post.Never.
posted by liam at 11:11 AM on October 22, 2001

I have no problem with people thinking that issue of the Onion wasn't funny. It was definitely a change from their usual style, and I can see how some people wouldn't be amused by it.

However, I did find it funny, and I resent the implication that those of us who enjoyed it just didn't have the "guts" to say how bad it was.
posted by moss at 11:11 AM on October 22, 2001

i thought it was the best issue i'd ever read. the onion always references recent events, and i would guess that their options were these:

1. don't put out an issue.
2. try like hell to be sensitive and funny at the same time.

i applaud that they chose the latter. not all of it was funny, but none of it was cheap. a headline like "Terrorists: 2, USA: 0" would be wholly inappropriate.

I thought the "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule" headline was inspired. Not to mention the article.
posted by o2b at 11:14 AM on October 22, 2001

Speaking of post-9/11 funny, This piece on owillis's site was twisted and sick. I loved it.
posted by aaron at 11:16 AM on October 22, 2001

Kids, it's The Onion. It's only ever funny about half of the time anyway. Once you know their shtick, it's usually pretty predictable. What they proved with the issue on Sept. 26 was that you could make fun of the situation. They scored a couple of good items (the God one especially) that week, The next week, maybe one. Last week, nothing special.

I don't expect "INCREDIBLE!!!" from The Onion every week. They were never that good to begin with.
posted by briank at 11:18 AM on October 22, 2001

Hrm. Well, I didn't think it was that 'funny', but I didn't think they were trying to be really either.

Not that the Onion is all gold every week for me, but it seems to be back to it's usual quality level Fourth-Graders' Button-Making-Machine Privileges Suspended Indefinitely Was one of the funniest thing's I've read. But I suppose they are trying to play it safe.
posted by delmoi at 11:19 AM on October 22, 2001

The cake-baking one emphasized that monumental tragedies tend to bring out the best in people, and with housewives in middle America, that means making a nice Patriotic cake for everyone. I thought was a great dead-pan view of how futile people's actions can be during trama, no matter how well-intended. It was a "Marge Simpson" reaction.
posted by Down10 at 11:20 AM on October 22, 2001

And OJR isn't journalism. Or rather, it's the poor Afghan's Jim Romanesko. But we knew that already.
posted by holgate at 11:29 AM on October 22, 2001

I haven't noticed any special praise of the Onion's post 9/11 pieces until now. To me, it was just another week of The Onion. Some of it was funny, some wasn't. I did think that the "For Kids" piece was nice, since it was actually serious this time, in how to try to explain what happened to your kids. The Onion wasn't mooned over anywhere near as much as (deservedly)David Letterman, or (the unfunny) Jon Stewart.
posted by jbelshaw at 11:38 AM on October 22, 2001

The Onion hasn't been funny since T. Herman Zwiebel left for the stars.

The Daily Probe seems to have taken up where the Onion left off.
posted by Dillenger69 at 11:47 AM on October 22, 2001

briank said

"I don't expect "INCREDIBLE!!!" from The Onion every week. They were never that good to begin with,"

Sorry to single you out, briank (especially because by saying "... that good" you may actually defending the Onion as "no one can EVER be 'INCREDIBLE!!' every week. Because that I can agree with). But even if you are defending them, there are plenty of comments in this thread which remind me of how ridiculously indy-music-scene metafilter can be at times.

I'm a comedy writer myself, and am utterly in awe of the onion's collective ability. I know multiple-Emmy-Award winners who will genuflect to them as much or more than I will. Of course the Onion folks stumble on occasion, but who among us doesn't? They stumble less than anyone else out there, and soar more frequently, too.

It's maddening trying to keep up to date on what the bleeding edge is allowed to like, and when expiraction dates occur. Clearly the onion is no longer allowed, but I long to see what hallmark of comedy you all will toss up as superior, and just how long it will take for them to be yesterday's news.

Meanwhile, I'll keep reading "Our Dumb Century," which I consider far and away the funniest book ever written.
posted by Sinner at 11:55 AM on October 22, 2001

The Onion is pretty funny, and the post-attack articles were not necessarily all that funny, but they did hit the right spots. I think if you were mildly offended by them, you might be a mild raget of their abuse. Pre 9-11, igonorant people were funny. Post 9-11 ignorant people aren't as funny because it's life and death.
posted by cell divide at 12:09 PM on October 22, 2001

It's definitely true that the Onion love-fest in the original post-9/11-Onion thread definitely drowned out any discussion of whether or not the issue was funny or well done or anything.

I personally think this OJR piece is basically on-target, but then I said something along those lines in that old thread, too.
posted by mattpfeff at 12:26 PM on October 22, 2001

Funny that the one Onion piece the OJR writer praised in his article came true.

The Onion wrote:

Not Knowing What Else To Do, Woman Bakes American-Flag Cake

and this appeared in the Orange County Register a week later:

Baking with the red, white and blue may aid in healing

By the way, when did 'funny' become empirical law? I always thought it was subjective. I hope the OJR has more hard hitting pieces soon like 'Your Mother jokes. Not funny at all'.
posted by jasonshellen at 12:27 PM on October 22, 2001

Something changed in us. The guys at The Onion changed with us. They'll be back to strength when we are too. I find it reassuring. And you can't get any funnier than that: Onion Reassures Troubled Nation, Metafilter
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:36 PM on October 22, 2001

Wow, Sinner...the funniest book EVER written??? Really?

I may not be a "multi-Emmy-winning" TV writer (although I'll bet I went to college with more multi-Emmy-winning TV writers than the average guy), but if The Onion is the gold standard by which all comedy is being judged these days, that explains "Inside Schwartz" and "Bob Patterson".

The Onion is funny most of the time. But "Funniest.Book.Ever." funny?
posted by briank at 12:55 PM on October 22, 2001

This thread is definitely not funny. Was it good for you?
posted by timothompson at 1:12 PM on October 22, 2001

Mr. Zeitchik started to make a good point when he said, "This has nothing to do with the death of irony. It has a lot to do with the comedy of separation. When the gulf narrows, you're up a creek." However, it seems he has failed to apply that principle to his own subjective determination of what was and wasn't funny about the Onion's satire of the events surrounding September 11.

The main root of humour, that most people fail to recognize, is that it involves pain, always. Try to think of a (funny) joke that does not involve the pain of someone. It's always about misfortune, embarrassment, hurt, misunderstanding. Humour is a way of dealing with pain, but it's very hard to laugh when you are the one who is being hurt. Being the butt of a joke sucks (unless you are joking about yourself on purpose)--making someone else the butt of a joke is great fun.

I keep having a recurring argument with my friend about this. He concedes my point but claims that wordplay and puns don't involve anyone's pain--I counter that every pun causes pain to the listener. Then I knock him down and shove some baking soda up his ass, followed by a squirt of vinegar, just to prove my point with a fountain of foamy goodness.

See? It's funny because it's not you.

As Mr. Zeitchik says, it's hard to see humour in the situation when you've been busy empathizing with the pain of those affected. But that doesn't meen the humour isn't there.
posted by SpaceBass at 1:21 PM on October 22, 2001

Funny vs Not Funny. Appropriate vs. Inappropriate. Irony vs. Death of Irony. These are all fine debates, but who really cares? Mostly I was left wondering why the OJR was bothering to devote an entire column to analyzing the quality of the post-attack Onion. The writer is a fan, and simply didn't think the issue was funny. That's a column?

Aren't there more important things in online journalism than giving a thumbs-up/thumbs-down report card on The Onion?
posted by CosmicSlop at 1:25 PM on October 22, 2001

Funny vs Not Funny. Appropriate vs. Inappropriate. Irony vs. Death of Irony. These are all fine debates, but who really cares? Mostly I was left wondering why the OJR was bothering to devote an entire column to analyzing the quality of the post-attack Onion. The writer is a fan, and simply didn't think the issue was funny. That's a column?

Aren't there more important things in online journalism than giving a thumbs-up/thumbs-down report card on The Onion?
posted by CosmicSlop at 1:26 PM on October 22, 2001

Funny vs Not Funny. Appropriate vs. Inappropriate. Irony vs. Death of Irony. These are all fine debates, but who really cares? Mostly I was left wondering why the OJR was bothering to devote an entire column to analyzing the quality of the post-attack Onion. The writer is a fan, and simply didn't think the issue was funny. That's a column?

Aren't there more important things in online journalism than giving a thumbs-up/thumbs-down report card on The Onion?
posted by CosmicSlop at 1:28 PM on October 22, 2001

Jebus, I can't believe I misspelt "mean." Now that's comedy.
posted by SpaceBass at 1:30 PM on October 22, 2001

briank -

No bluster, hyperbole or exaggeration here - i absolutely unequivocally do think that ODC is the funniest.book.ever.written. Subjective? of course.

The true value of "multi-emmy-award-winning" agreement? Nonexistent.

Having read the book a couple of times, I can't even really think of competitors, although I'd be interested in suggestions. In fact, this may be the opportunity for me to unleash a front-page post I've been thinking about for a while.
posted by Sinner at 1:33 PM on October 22, 2001

SpaceBass: I feel your pain....

/gesticulates wildly in SB's direction and rolls on the floor guffawing uncontrollably/
posted by mattpfeff at 1:38 PM on October 22, 2001

Sinner...

Getting Even, Without Feathers or Side Effects?

Actually, Notes From A Small Island makes me laugh out loud every reread.
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:39 PM on October 22, 2001

aaron: when will you come out and play? join the ranks of the bloggers, journalers and online-comedy site creators/contributors? once you mentioned a concern with design or appearance as an issue. still a pressing issue?
posted by allaboutgeorge at 1:51 PM on October 22, 2001

As an interesting addendum to this somewhat boring thread (<-- shows my indie rock credibility :P), I heard a good show on NPR with the editors of The Onion describing their new editorial process, what is over the line now, and some other insights. If I knew any HTML, I'd post the link, but you can find it at NPR.org, under the program Fresh Air, in the archives dated 2 weeks ago. It's worth the searching if you're interested.
posted by skechada at 2:01 PM on October 22, 2001

Having read the book a couple of times, I can't even really think of competitors...

Catch-22
posted by nikzhowz at 2:03 PM on October 22, 2001

I've read Getting Even and Without Feathers and on a whole lot of levels think that ODC is better in terms of complexity, artistry and most of all, sheer number of quality jokes - that's the hardest part at all.

Yes, there is some superlative material in Woody's books, but have you ever noticed how THIN they are?

Side Effects and Notes..., I've never read. Hmm... What do you think? Front-page this? I'm trigger-shy these days.
posted by Sinner at 2:06 PM on October 22, 2001

hmm

Sounds like a syrup party to me.

But then again, probably everybody and their iguana will want to share their favorites.

Your call, palomino.
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:25 PM on October 22, 2001

Sinner, I agree with your defense of the Onion. Amongst comedy sources, theirs was the only relevant response I know of, simply because they tried to address the situation – whether you find it funny or not isn't really the issue. I can't say I pissed myself laughing while reading it, but I was somewhat in awe. (Pissed myself with awe?) It reminded me of Swift, and I was embarassed by SNL when they simply turned away.

As for the Best.Book.Ever argument, I don't know if I buy that, but I see the point. It's definitely some sort of masterpiece. I also like Without Feathers, a few Spike Milligan books and Et Tu, Babe (off the top of my head).
posted by D at 2:29 PM on October 22, 2001

I think that would have to be "Pissed myself with ewww"
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:35 PM on October 22, 2001

C'mon over here...
posted by Sinner at 2:56 PM on October 22, 2001

I laughed my ass of about "hijackers surprised to find themselves in hell."
I mean, there wasn't one goddamn funny thing about 9/11, yet they managed to make me laugh. Who cares how funny, no, really funny, no, made me pee my pants funny, it was? It was creative and funny. (How many times can that word be used in this thread?) You win some, you lose some. So do they.
posted by aacheson at 3:25 PM on October 22, 2001

So, i was slightly offended about his comments that people that said it was funny were only following blindly... and his lack of support for his idea... and his lack of alternative theories... so i shot him a email, cuz i'm an ass i suppose, here it is:


I think there's another possibility that you overlooked. I think you'll agree that less than 100% of Americans think the onion is funny. Lets say that threshold is at 10%. So, 10% of Americans like the onion. I agree with your theory that we find it funny because we see a little of ourselves in it, but not so much that we actually identify with the people being made fun of. So, the 10% that like it are laughing at the 90% that don't. In this situation I think a possibility you overlooked was a shift in the threshold. Perhaps only 5% of people like the week you're referring to, because it is a parody of the other 95%. The 5% that shifted from liking the onion to not, did so because they identified more with the previous 90%, as you stated:

"Problem is, in the world after September 11, this gap is closing. We've identified a little too much with other Americans"

And I totally agree, that 5% has identified too much with other Americans, but you are not allowing for the fact that there is still 5% that does not.

To answer your question, "'Security Beefed Up at Cedar Rapids Public Library.' What's the joke here? That someone would be anxious enough to think that they too could be a target? Didn't everyone think that?"
No, everyone didn't think that, and to many people it was funny. If you did think that, that's fine, but don't criticize others who are putting out original content. Obviously other people enjoyed it, as you point out many times in your review, so let them. If you didn't fine, there are a lot of people who never liked the onion.
posted by rhyax at 3:41 PM on October 22, 2001

late again!
school playground jokes offer a curious narrative on current events, as do just about all forms of humour.
any on offer?
will trade.
posted by asok at 4:13 PM on October 22, 2001

late again!
school playground jokes offer a curious narrative on current events, as do just about all forms of humour.
any on offer?
will trade.

*goodnight*
posted by asok at 4:14 PM on October 22, 2001

Funny vs Not Funny. Appropriate vs. Inappropriate. Irony vs. Death of Irony.

Pancakes vs. Waffles, anyone?
posted by Dirjy at 4:27 PM on October 22, 2001

All this article proves it that it's easier to criticize than it is to create.
posted by toastcowboy at 5:24 PM on October 22, 2001

The critic writes: In fact, obviousness seemed to permeate the site, particularly with its lead graphic, which, quite literally, said nothing. "Holy fucking shit," it read, above an image of a U.S. map with a target sign superimposed on it. (The Onion's tendency to mistake obscenities for comedy has been a constant thorn-in-its-paw.) You get the sense that the editors got together and decided that they should reflect our feelings instead of holding up a fun-house mirror to them.

Hmm. I seem to remember a clip that CNN showed over and over of an amateur video, on which a guy screamed, "Holy shit! Shit! Hooooly shit!" One of CNN's people warned about the curse words at one point, then said, well, they were appropriate in this case. But of course CNN, even though it can show the video over and over, can't label it's coverage "Holy Fucking Shit." That should go without saying.
posted by raysmj at 10:43 PM on October 22, 2001

I thought some of the jokes at the daily probe link were funny.

for LOOOSAS !!!
posted by ProfLinusPauling at 10:45 PM on October 22, 2001

sorry.

I did actually laugh at some of them.
posted by ProfLinusPauling at 10:46 PM on October 22, 2001

I suspect most of the cheerleading of the Onion was primarily due to the tons of people who were claiming in all seriousness that the American Culture will never laugh again and this was going to completely change our way of life.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:00 PM on October 22, 2001

Whatever.
posted by Kikkoman at 12:39 AM on October 23, 2001

It's really helpful to me to learn why things that made me laugh were not funny.
posted by Zurishaddai at 1:44 AM on October 23, 2001

Sorry, I found it funny and intelligent - God clarifies murder rule being my favourite.
posted by twistedonion at 2:07 AM on October 23, 2001

Speaking of post-9/11 funny, This piece on owillis's site was twisted and sick. I loved it.
posted by aaron at 11:16 AM PST on October 22

This freaked me out a little, as I dreamed the other night that aaron and owillis were the same person, which proves :

a) they aren't
b) I'm spending too much time here
c) my dosages are way off
d) all of the above.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:01 AM on October 23, 2001