home authors guest shorts graphical shorts
Ladies, have a heart, now. Every soul gits hungry fer some lovin' once in a way and Lonesome Dan the Mountain Man ain't no 'ception. Fact is, gits colder'n a skeeter'n January out in them hills at night, and powerful lonesome too. Plumb near went off m'rocker a few times skifflin' whangers down the creek ah felt so blue. Shucky Kentucky I get tired o' hustlin' them hoodoos and sloppin' them prarie chickens all day long! And y'cain't hardly blame a soul fer hankerin' after the tender poontang and bosoms of a young lass when he keeps gettin his dilly-doodle torn up on account of his old lady's shrively dried-up ol' sandpapery beef jerky snatcheroonie...ain't that right, fellers?
C'mon, gals. Don't go a-hoarding them charms away like a coyote slinkin off with a jinky-wobbler. Shoot, seems like a bushelful o' hog's moons since a good woman done swallowed down Lonesome Dan's homestyle gatlin' gravy. Alls ah'm looking fer's t'find me a real nice little heifer with big udders who'll rub on my oysters with weasel oil, then open up her sweet l'il cranny n'do a do-si-do on m'gator gun till it goes off like a firecracker. Surer'n six sows shit in a sty I'd like to git me some o' that sweet sucky-suck from a fine l'il chinky squaw or one o them purty negresses I seen. Consarned if I ain't gettin' randier'n a rassle-tassler in a cooter's den jist t'of thunk on it!
Date Written: February 28, 2004Comments:
Author: Jon Matza
Average Vote: 3.54545
03/4/2004 Craig Lewis (5): Tarnation this is good!
03/4/2004 Benny Maniacs (5): Gatlin gravy. Why can't I think up shit like gatlin gravy.
03/4/2004 scoop (3): Brilliant use of language. Some great lines, but in the end its just a guy who wants to fuck.
03/4/2004 qualcomm (3): skilled, overlong execution of an ancient joke. goes nowhere. bit of a sweat act is what i'm saying.
03/4/2004 Ewan Snow (3): Middling Matza persona short. Well executed, but well worn and no big laughs/surpirses.
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: How dare you! How dare you! How dare you! Actually I agree
with you, though I enjoyed writing it & hopefully there's some laughs in their for first-timers, linguists, children and the simple at heart. But if I'm not exclusively praised from now on, I'm going to make some really serious threats.
03/4/2004 Craig Lewis: Matza, you're being too conciliatory. Your short is a lot funnier and better written than any I've read since your last one. These jokers are giving you demerits for lack of originality -- but they're the ones who confuse incomprehensibility for originality.
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko (5): There's enough good stuff in here to give it at least a four. What's wrong with a short about a guy who just wants to fuck if, as you say Scoop, there are some great lines and brilliant use of language?
03/4/2004 qualcomm: this thing is too easy, lewis. not to defend my average tournament entry, but your comment on it was that using Peanuts was a cheap device. is it really any cheaper than the borrowed yosemite sam voice employed in this short? and what's the joke here? he wants to get laid. now, if wanting to get laid weren't already part of the cliche of the western cowpoke dude that's being sent up in this short, it might be funnier. but see, the cliche already contains horniness; it's not like country hicks have a reputation for puritanism (frontier brothels, spending all your herding money in sioux city for a night of carousal, etc.). so this short isn't exposing anything about the cliche, dig? like i said, it's skillfully rendered, but in order to be funny, there has to be some fucking joyceian epiphany. i think i'm starting to understand your humor aesthetics. you like jokes with obvious precedents, nothing too new or surprising, or heaven forbid, nonsensical. you award points mainly on style, and consistency of voice (as you yourself admitted in an early comment that i don't feel like finding). talk about cronyism. i generally like matza's shorts as much as the next guy, but this subpar.
03/4/2004 Ewan Snow: Dylan: I agree with you about scoopís comment. That isnít the main problem with this one. Predictably, of course, you tow Craigís line. Craig: So the people who liked (or at least got) my short yesterday were wrong, because you were too stupid to get it. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't mean itís incomprehensible, though you like to flatter yourself by saying it does. And the people who thought this short was a second rate rehash (including the author) are wrong, because you liked it (managed to get it). Are you sure that you don't just have an entirely conventional sense of humor, as your tedious and never funny shorts seem to suggest? Are you sure your imagination isnít a small smear of dog doo? Maybe you'd be happier at McSweeney's. Do you still write shorts, by the way, or are shorts like music; you failed at it so decided to just be a critic?
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: Mummy? Dada? I get really nervous and sad when you fight. (If only I write better shorts, maybe the family will stay together...must work harder...)
03/4/2004 qualcomm: shut up, you!
03/4/2004 Mr. Pony: Every time the good Lord closes a door, somewhere He opens a window.
03/4/2004 qualcomm: i don't know anything about lewis' upbringing, but i have found that children with unstable home lives tend to grow into adults who prefer art & humor that comforts, rather than challenges, them.
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: I'll ignore Ewan's predictably bratty and desperate, personal invective towards me and focus on the legos he's hurling at Lewis which as we all know is motivated by a love that dare not speak its name. Lewis, give him what he wants (indeed, needs) and maybe we can avoid becoming the lastest controversy.
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: how do they feel about brainteasers?
03/4/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum (4):
03/4/2004 qualcomm: you mean like anagrams? they love 'em!
03/4/2004 qualcomm: stop asserting your independence, jimson.
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: and yeah i meant lastest.
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: 5 Stars would have been asserting her independence. 4 is just fence sitting.
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: But they're very challenging!
03/4/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: Okay, Felspar. Sorry.
03/4/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: Oh, puulleeeez, Dylan. I'm not even going to dignify myself with a response to that!
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: Yeah ok. Get all pissy at me and not Feldspar. Sniff!
03/4/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: God, you deserve to be hurt. You missed the point....You need to read more carefully.
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: No one deserves to be hurt, Jimson. We all are humans. With feelings; needs; desires; proclivities.
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: Points hurt Jimson!
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: Hey Disney - how about an archive of past controversies? Granted, Texxx probably disappeared with about 50% of them.
03/4/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: I'm not a human. I'm a huWOMAN.
03/4/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: By the way, was that 'Points hurt, Jimson!' or 'Points hurt Jimson.'
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: Sorry. You're impervious to points. I, however, am a sweet, delicate soul. Please take this into account when confronting me.
03/4/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: Oh, Dylan. Look at my comment again and think Farva. God, I hate explaining this. I feel like such a douche. But if it'll save your 'feelings,'I'll do it.
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: It's that you said you weren't going to dignify yourself, not Danko, with a response, right?
03/4/2004 Will Disney: matza: sadly, i can't show an archive of past shorts b/c the database only keeps track of the current one. stupid, i know. maybe we'll start recording them...
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: If people want to, they can start referring to me as "The Healer".
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: Yes Matza, we all get it except Jimson. By the way, is that think, Farva or think Farva? Again, though I'll admit the resemblance, I very hurt...in the form of tears.
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: Now I'm even more lost than I was reading the new short.
03/4/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: Ditto, Matz.
03/4/2004 qualcomm: new short's good, assholes.
03/4/2004 scoop: Danko, Snow: scoops been out hunting down the truth so he missed this latest debate.
My point was simply that such accurate use of language to serve a simple minded joke is a waste. Its like a good cinematographer with a shit director. It seems that whoever was capable of writing this was also capable of providing it with some subtext aside from a simple cowpolks desire for copulation. That's all. I didn't hate it, but I just think it could've been funnier given the set up.
03/4/2004 Ewan Snow: I hear ya, scoop, and more or less agree: Style - substance > 0.
03/4/2004 Mr. Pony: Style without substance is better than nothing?
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: Substance???? I am hearing you fellas right? Pulleeze!
03/4/2004 qualcomm: hey, let's get back to the issue, which is lewis' preference for pedestrian ideas.
03/4/2004 Jon Matza: :) x 8) = ;)
03/4/2004 scoop: Wow. Matza just spun an emoticonic narrative that sums up my entire childhood. Good work.
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: You mean like the ones in shorts you and Snow have written that he's praised highly? Aww fuck it, Lewis can defend himself.
03/4/2004 Craig Lewis: I'm back. Where to begin? Feldspar: I suppose it's all well and good to try to extrapolate a larger humor aesthetic (not to mention theory of childhood trauma) based on my comments about these couple of shorts, but you're off the mark. I have no problem with nonsense or surrealism per se; if I did, I wouldn't be an admirer of so many of your shorts -- or for that matter, many of Snow's. (Armchair psychology pre-emption: My complimenting Snow's work is neither a rhetorical gambit nor an effort to prove that I'm a great guy. Just a statement of fact.) As in all things, it's about the execution. I disliked Snow's last short -- which I critiqued, I hasten to remind you, in the absence of any information about its authorship (check the chronology) -- because its surrealism seemed flaccid to me; I still haven't heard from anybody who can explain to me what the phrases "Planned Neglect" and "Dramatic objections donít redeem assent" mean and why they are funny...or are these phrases are examples of meaningless-but-hilarious nonsense humor that a numbskull and philistine like me just doesn't get? Are you at least willing to admit that there is a spectrum of nonsense comedy, ranging from the patently unfunny to the uproarious, and that it is possible that I might sensibly find that Ewan's short falls somewhere more towards the unfunny end of that spectrum? Furthermore, while I completely reject the idea that I'm into "comforting," safe, hackneyed humor, it is true that I find much of what passes for edgy, "challenging" art -- whether in movies or music or a gallery on West 22nd Street -- unbearably pretentious, self-satisfied, boring and vapid shit. I have to chuckle a bit at the dichotomy you've set up: you and Ewan are the burning young avant-gardeists, the "challenging" heirs to Lenny Bruce and -- you said it -- Joyce; I'm the quaking little bourgeois, emotionally crippled by my parents' divorce, feeding my wounded soul with a steady diet of, I dunno, Martin Mull? All this because I preferred Matza's Yosemite Sam short to "Planned Neglect"? Please rest assured: as challenging as Snow's vision is, nothing in his short scared me. And by the way: I had a perfectly cloudless and happy childhood. Onto Snow now. I'm beginning to think there may be something to Danko's theory about your love for me. The fact is, all of my invective has been focused on questions of taste and the shorts themselves; you keep coming back to my personal life and how stupid I am. Let's review. We've established that I'm a hipster poseur. That I'm "trendy." That I speak with a lisp. That my apartment has ill-conceived decor. That I have a key chain. (This may be grist for Feldspar's mill: key chain is holdover latch-key kid upbringing, one too many evenings spent sitting forlorn on stoop waiting for single Mom to come home from work, why doesn't Daddy love me Mommy.....waaaaaaaaaa! Quick! I need to watch Jay Leno!) That -- I'm quoting now -- I'm "too stupid to get it," my "mind is full of shit," my imagination is "a small smear of dog doo" (bit of a leitmotif, there). That my profession is worthless. Leaving aside various questions I might have about your life -- what is it you do for a living again? something with computers? -- I would like to remind you that while I've harshly criticized your shorts and taste, I've never impugned your intelligence, for the simple reason that it's clear to me that you are smart, and to do so would be the very height of stupidity. Do you actually believe that I've got shit for brains? Care to back up the contention with some evidence? If you don't really think I'm an idiot, why say so repeatedly? Is it because you can't bear to deprive the world of letters of such pearls of polemical prose as "Are you sure your imagination insít a small smear of dog do?"? As for your opinion that my shorts are unfunny: fine. I invite you to rate them accordingly. (I reserve the right to praise your shorts when I think they are funny.) One of the differences between you and me, since you return time and again to the theme of my career, is that Acmeshorts.com isn't my sole literary outlet, and as a result, I daresay my ego is somewhat less invested in it than yours. If you think my comedy writing is terrible, but would care to sample my work in other genres, I invite you to purchase my book at the following address: http://www.amazon.com. And no, my short-writing career isn't over, sorry to say: check the guest short pending queue. (You might also want to read my entry in the first ever acmeshorts tournament.) Finally, a small factual matter. Your contention that I "failed" at music technically incorrect. You've clearly forgotten "King of the Moon," the Why-O's track that was included on the free Milkboy Records sampler CD Milkboy's Pu-Pu Platter (1997).
03/4/2004 Craig Lewis: It's a bit long, but please read every last word before responding. Thanks.
03/4/2004 Craig Lewis: P.S. Mulp, motherfuckers.
03/4/2004 scoop: That's it I've had it! I'm sick of fancy-pants know-it-alls like yourself telling me what to like and not to like. I often try to stay silent in these things and mind my place, but this time you've gone too far Lewis. Or should I say "ass hole." I'm sick of being marginal;ized by you pseudo-intellectuals. I've seen him on more than one occassion, on television and live, and think Martin Mull is one of the singular talents in comedy of the 80s, and even in to the early 90s. I saw him live back in '87 at the Comedy Cellar, kicked ass...
03/4/2004 qualcomm: minor correction... i was not intending to compare myself or snow to joyce. i only said that matza's short lacks a joyceian epiphany, which was my overblown way of saying that it had no surprise or new perspective on to offer on the cliche it's sending up. i can't defend the few points you picked with snow's last short, because to me those particular ones also made no sense. but i liked other stuff in the short, and as i indicated in my comments, thought it was a 3.5.
03/4/2004 Craig Lewis: Ok, Feldspar. So I take it I've cleared things up about my "preference for pedestrain ideas"? I'm glad we had this little talk. Snow?
03/4/2004 qualcomm: no i'm still convinced you show a preference on this site at least for shorts with more mundane concepts. i will gather my evidence tonight. and incidentally, i also have other literary outlets. for example, the Lyondell Chemical Company presentation booklet, located at \\dchic001pn1\pdmsdirs\403\4030134N\4030134N.ppt in UBS's Praxis file database system.
03/4/2004 qualcomm: and since matza doesn't generally defend his shorts, i must point out that you have not responded to my critique of it, i.e., defended your five-star rating.
03/4/2004 scoop: Yeah man that presentation kicks ass! Saw it live back in '87...
03/4/2004 qualcomm: and to answer danko's last sally: i have no problem with a short with a mundane concept. i'm sure i've rated many such ones highly. i'm just not queer for them the way you and lewis are.
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: Please provide evidence. Hopefully before you and Scoop copulate.
03/4/2004 Ewan Snow: Can't respond now and have to fly tomorrow morning. Not sure why you care if I think you have shit for brains, Lewis. Since you seem to, however, I'll be sure to explain it to when I get back. And I'll do it in considerably fewer words than you just barfed up.
03/4/2004 Craig Lewis: Feldspar: I look forward to your essay on my preference for the mundane. Good luck to you. To answer your question: I gave Matza's short 5 stars because I whooped when I read it. I can elaborate if you're really interested, but basically I rewarded this thing for the yuks.
03/4/2004 Dylan Danko: Sure Ewan! "Flying." "Tomorrow." We all know these words really mean your conceding.
03/4/2004 Craig Lewis: Snow weighs in! And why am I not surprised that instead of responding the substance of what I've written, he takes a swipe at the length of my post? Could it be because the points I make are unanswerable? Typical skunk tactic: when your wits fail you, change the subject. Ok, Ewan, you win: your comments contain fewer words than mine. Great point. Second skunk move: when you have nothing to say, adopt posture of indifference about the entire argument. Not sure why you care if I think you have shit for brains, ho hum, I've got a plane to catch, can't really be bothered with this tiresome business. Anyway, dude, have a good long think while you're away. Take as much time as you need. And then come back here and do please post your (very pithy) essay on my stupidity. I'm not going to let you weasel out of this one, either. Bye now.
03/5/2004 annebot (1): Well, we all want to give it up to some hick (speaking as a lady) but as a bot I must tell you that your story kinda seems to be edging towards beastiality... Not that it's uncool, but why hide your *true* desires?
03/8/2004 catfish (4): Wow, what a load of bull posted here in the comments! Its egoriffic. Simple in "comedic aesthetic" or not, this short needs at least a 4 for the use of "shucky kentucky"
05/18/2004 TheBuyer (1): fuckwad
01/14/2005 scoop: Hey who the fuck does this fucking catfish fuck think he fucking is anyfuckingway?
01/14/2005 John Slocum (5): Brilliant use of language. Some great lines, but in the end its just a guy that fucks scoop's ass and makes him eat his own shit right off his cock.
07/16/2009 qualcomm: still gathering evidence, lewis. you're not going to slime your way out of this, you fucking bowel.
07/17/2009 qualcomm: exhibit a