

|

The International Writers Magazine:Review
Naked
by David Sedaris
Phoenix - ISBN: 0753812487
Dan Schneider
I
have
listened to some of David Sedariss work on public radio,
seen him on several occasions on PBS, and once saw him in person
at a Twin Cities outlet for comedians. And one thing always ran
through my mind. Given that he was, at best, marginally funny,
in that way that Big Gay Al from South Park is, was whatever humor
was gleaned from his arid observations a thing innate within the
work, or merely a product of his personae?
|
|
Having now read
Naked, a book of so-called essays, although autobiographical
fiction is a better term, I have my answer. Sedaris is just not
a funny writer. Yes, a mild tee-hee might escape every twenty-second
page, but humor is not his forte. He is no Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken,
James Thurber, Dorothy Parker, Jean Shepherd, nor even a Kurt Vonnegut
nor Woody Allen, much less a Dave Barry. His pieces are remarkably dull,
and uneven. And, if you are wondering why I believe the term autobiographical
fiction better applies to his work than essays it
is because in any number of the seventeen published pieces within the
details of Sedariss life do not cohere. They are made use of in
ways that contradict the claims of other pieces. This is not a flaw
in the work as a whole, nor any of the individual pieces, but does point
up a shortcoming in the marketing of his work.
As for that work, ho hum. Here is what passes for humor in the beginning
of the books first piece, Chipped Beef:
Im thinking of asking the servants to wax my change
before placing it in the Chinese tank I keep on my dresser. Its
important to have clean money- not new, but well maintained. Thats
one of the tenets of my church. Its not mine personally, but the
one I attend with my family: the Cathedral of the Sparkling Nature.
Its that immense Gothic building with the towers and bells and
statues of common people poised to leap from the spires. They offer
tours and theres an open house the first Sunday of every October.
You should come! Just dont bring your camera because the flash
tends to spook the horses,...
Now, no point emerges from the tale. Its just an excuse for Sedaris
to prattle on self-consciously. And, given a high-pitched, fey voice,
there can be some humor found in what is said. But, just lying flat
on a white page, this is not good writing. The first two sentences set
up the speaker as gay, with an almost obsessive-compulsive like disorder
(which Sedaris claims to suffer from). This is supposed to be funny,
but humor requires something familiar put into a different context,
and one that makes a bit of sense. In short, to paraphrase from the
Woody Allen film Crimes And Misdemeanors, If it bends its
funny, if it breaks its not funny. This reference breaks,
and is just odd. The third sentence tries to expand on the initial attempt
at humor, while also slyly digging at organized religion. Im all
for this, of course, but bad religion jokes do not serve any purpose,
save reveal their humorists lack. This leads into the next sentence,
which, with Sedaris having failed to make funny on the opening, nor
extrapolation, only exacerbates the grating attempt at humor. I guess
the Cathedral of the Sparkling Nature can be enunciated
in a funny way, or is a sly shot at New Age beliefs, but it puizzles,
more than amuses. The next reference, to suicides, comes out of nowhere.
So, the piece has some poorly connected and unfunny notions and images
that when juxtaposed, are supposed to be funny. Imagine me saying wombat,
Ronald Reagan, telekinesis, Mission: Impossible, Truman Capote.
Are you giggling yet?
He continues by starting, They offer tours and theres
an open house the first Sunday of every October. You should come!,
with emphasis added by the exclamation point. I guess a high-pitched
whine could be funny read aloud, but the words themselves have little
humor. Why is it funny that the New Age church of suicides offers tours
on a specific date? Perhaps one should be thankful this didnt
go to Looney Tunes length, in Rube Goldbergianly describing describing
the open house being held on every fisrt Sunday of October when swallows
flock to Monterrey and an old Mexican scratches his ass in view of a
goat! Then, we get another asides, and a drunken priests revelation,
which allows for Sedaris to add a stereotypically gay moment
of self-congratulation.
In truth, this portion of the opening pieces opening paragraph
sets the tone for the whole book. You neednt really read on. Yes,
there are the strained catholic jokes- like later in the first piece:
You have how many children in your family?, the teachers
would ask. Im guessing you must be Catholic. Am I right?
A real gutbuster, aint it? Not that there are no good premises
for stories. In Cyclops the piece opens with two accidents, Sedariss
father shooting a BB gun at a boy, causing him to lose one of his eyes,
and Sedariss sister nearly blinding him with a sharp pencil to
his eye. But, nothing is really done with this set up, save to allow
Sedariss father to be portrayed as a paranoid maniac who makes
scenes, such as this one:
I cower as he marches into posh grocery stores, demanding
to speak to the manager. Back home I can get this exact same cantaloupe
for less than half this price, he says. The managers invariably
suggest that he do just that. He screams at waiters and cuts in line
at tony restaurants. I have a friend, I tell him, Who
lost his right arm snapping his fingers at a waiter.
Oh, you kids, he says. Not a one of you has
got so much as a teaspoon of gumption. I dont know where you got
it from, but in the end, its going to kill you.
Still not rolling tears down your cheeks? If you sense that Sedaris
is one of those snobby brie eaters whose idea of humor is merely pointing
at an overweight construction worker and sighing knowingly, youre
correct. In C.O.G. he picks apples and meets born-again Christians in
Oregon. In A Plague of Tics Sedaris rolls out his strange behaviors
as a child: such as licking lightswitches, and hitting himself with
a shoe. Something For Everyone is an extended whine about being
unemployed and watching too much tv, which is not so much funny as sad,
despite Sedariss obliviousness to the fact, while I Like Guys
and Ashes seem to find humor in merely being gay. Ashes opens:
The moment I realized I would be a homosexual for the rest of my life,
I forced my brother and sisters to sign a contract swearing theyd
never get married. There was a clause allowing them to live with anyone
of their choice, just so long as they never made it official.
It gets no funnier, people - not in that piece, nor the whole book,
despite Sedariss attempts to leaven that piece with the death
of his mother. And there is no depth to the observations. Its
sort of like the many PC writers whose only claim to originality
is that theyre the first person from some particular group to
write the same old boring tale about lovers in trouble or a trip with
a stupid relative. Sedaris should actually be a gag write for late night
tv, not a published, and lauded, author. Perhaps he deserved his Obie
Award as a playwright, but his essays, autobiographical fiction, or
what not, is flat as a day old opened can of store brand cream soda.
Get my specificity? (wink, nod) Part of the problem with Sedaris is
that his humor is never cruel. It is always glancing, and shallow. The
best of humor flows from the humorists deep need and/or desire
to be cruel, but in a socially acceptable way. Twain and Mencken loathed
their enemies, but made them buffoonishy lovable, to a degree- as does
Woody Allen, at his best. Sedaris is simply too nice, and, most likely,
simply not talented enough a wordsmith to do so. Thus, his need to flame
their delivery to garner any laughs.
Rather than a published author he should be pitching third rate sitcom
ideas to twenty-five year old smart-ass Hollywood producers. That is
his true Peter Principled level, for he is a tiresome, repetitive writer,
with little talent for boiling down moments to their essentials- be
they funny, deep, or tragic. And there is no need for me to elaborate
any further. Is there? I said, Is there? [Cue the canned
laughter]
© Dan Schneider Jan 2006
www.cosmoetica.com
-
Capote
Dir Bennet Miller
A Dan Schneider review
I have landed by Stephen Jay
Gould
A Dan Schnieder review
More Reviews
Home
©
Hackwriters 1999-2006
all rights reserved - all comments are the writers' own responsibiltiy
- no liability accepted by hackwriters.com or affiliates.
|