The Golden Age Of Television. 2.

The fifties, as exciting a time as it was for television, was NOT it's Golden Age.
It was just too flawed.
Although he started in the late forties, the fifties essentially turned Milton Berle into Mister Television.
For far too long.
Early on, it was simply a matter of "Look! He's moving!"
This graduated into "Look! He's moving! In a dress!.
Berle was mostly less than funny.
Combine this with his hammy mawkishness, and it was clear that he was not an asset to the Golden Age Legacy.

There were some great game shows in the fifties, like "What's My Line?", where the panelists dressed up in tuxedos, and the women wore evening gowns.
Except maybe when Berle showed up in a dress.

Or "I've Got A Secret", slightly less formal, but far more fun and more charming, primarily because of it's host, Garry Moore.

But then came the Quiz Show Scandals, which almost put a permanent end to all Quiz Shows.
A truly ugly time.

The fifties gave us Pinky Lee.

The fifties gave us fuzzy black-and-white pictures on the TV screens.

The fifties gave us Fuzzy Knight (Remember "Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion"?)
The fifties gave us "Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion"

The fifties introduced the concept of "Least objectionable programming"
And that decision usually fell to the head of the household.
Because most of us only had one set.
It brought us together, but not necessarily in a good way.

The fifties gave us Bert Parks.

The fifties gave us "My Llttle Margie".

But worse than anything, the fifties gave us the Blacklist.
It was pervasive, and certainly lowered the standards of what we were able to see, aside from ruining careers and lives.

Okay.
So I think I've made the case for why the fifties was NOT the Golden Age of Televison.

But I believe that there has been one, and I'll make the case for it next time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Golden Age Of Television.

The Fifties.
Also known as "The Fabulous Fifties".
What a time it was!
At least in terms of television.
Oh, I know that TV technichally got started in the late forties, but it really took it's shape,or at least the shape that it had, in the fifties.

We got to see a lot of wonderful things.
Sid Caesar, a true artist and genius, supported by the greatest writing staff for sketch comedy ever.
Jackie Gleason---It wasn't just "The Honeymooners".
He brought his entire repertoire of characters to his variety show.
My favorite was Reggie Van Gleason.
Gleason was another true artist.

Speaking of true artists, Ernie Kovacs was the great innovator.
Steve Allen brought his free-wheeling approach, where he brought some of the best comedy sketch players to his variety show.

Ed Sullivan's main gift was that he brought families together in an America where most families only had one TV set.
If you didn't like the guy spinning the plates, or the juggling unicyclist, just wait a few minutes and there'd be Myron Cohen.
And there'd always be something for "You youngsters out there".

There was Jack Paar.
I maintain that there has never been a talk show host as interesting as Paar.
By sheer force of his personality.
He was an absolutely compelling figure.

Ther were great dramatic anthologies.
Each week, there were the equivalent of at least three new plays on TV.
And they were each an event.
When the theme music swelled for "Playhouse 90", it was spine-tingling.

The common denominator to all this was that it was all LIVE.
As it was happening, you were seeing it.
This meant anything could happen, and often did.
When things went wrong, that was often part of the fun.

That element is for the most part gone, except for sporting events, and talking head news shows.

Aside from live, there was also the incomparable "Sergeant Bilko" and "I Love Lucy".

So it was quite a time.

But I'm here to tell you that the fifties was NOT the Golden Age
of Television.

And next time, I'll be here to tell you why not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Progress.

Progress has a way of becoming the great equalizer.
I mentioned a while back about how I used to be the world's foremost authority on death.
When famous people died, how they died, where they died, etc.
I used to impress a lot of people with this bit of morbidity.
No longer.
The Internet has rendered this talent useless.
It's leveled the playing field.
Anyone can push a button on his or her computer and have access to everything that has been rolling around my head for lo these many years.

However, progress has now turned things back in my direction.
Up until recently, I considered myself the worst driver who was ever issued a license.
Actually, my late mother was THE worst driver who was ever issued a license.
I just followed in her footsteps.
We combined the same two major flaws in our driving ability:
An inability to control the vehicle (even more incredible in my mother's case, in that she passed her road test on a stick-shift), and absolutely no sense of direction.

Then, this new invention came out. The GPS.
Ours is called a Garmin.
It allows you to never get lost.
Just by pushing a few buttons.
Yes, you have to listen to an automaton lady give you directions, but I consider that a small price to pay for the thorough humiliation that I used to go through by admitting to strangers that I was lost.

I've heard some men bemoan the Garmin as another threat to their manhood.
As if there is some pride to being able to never get lost, and not have to rely on some female voice to guide you along.
As if there is some sort of triumph in being able to get yourself unlost all by yourself.
Without any help.
Tommyrot!
At least in my case.
Any time I used to get behind the wheel, it was always even money that I would get lost.
And I'd have to rely on another device, my cell phone, to rely on another female's voice, my wife's, to guide me to where I was going.
It's nothing that I've ever attached manhood to.
If I did, I'd be too ashamed to leave the house, much less get behind the wheel.
So I am no more than half the worst driver in the world that I used to be.
Maybe I'm still the worst, but none of it can be blamed on my sense of direction.
I wonder how much this would have improved my mother's status.
Probably not much.
She had her own peccadillos that I had never before witnessed or emulated.
Upon entering a freeway from an off ramp, she would invariably come to a full stop before going onto the highway.
She would never just proceed with caution.
If that had occurred on her road test, I'm sure she'd never have passed.

But in my case, I feel the playing field leveling under me all the time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

My Aviary Addiction.

Fellow members, my name is Mark Rothman, and I am an addict.
Not to any drug.
Or anything alcoholic.
Or an abusive lifestyle.
Well, perhaps it contains elements of all three.
It is a game.
And there is no athletic benefit to it as there is to Wii Boxing.
Just a game.
A very simple game.
Called Angry Birds.
I while away far too many idle moments of my life playing Angry Birds.
Making those moments even more idle.

Angry Birds is a game that has been embraced by the youth of America.
And as far as I know, the world.
This makes it one of the few things I have in common with the youth of America.
And as far as I know, the world.

Angry Birds is compelling.
I play it on my IPhone.
For the uninformed, what you do is you hurl birds of various sizes and degrees of dexterity with a slingshot towards stationary pigs of various sizes and no dexterity.
When the Angry Bird lands on the pig, or on the piece of construction that lands on the pig firmly enough, the pig is destroyed.
When all of the pigs are destroyed in the same round, you proceed to the next level.
The birds all make very angry sounds, and the pigs all make laughing grunts.
I really don't want to hear the very angry sounds, or the laughing grunts.
This is because it is annoying, and it tips my wife off to the fact that I'm wasting my time playing Angry Birds.
So I turn off the sound.
As the birds are on my side, I never get angry at the birds.
Only the pigs.

You're playing this game in the hope that you get to see pigs die.
Growing up in a semi-kosher home, this is virtually a natural rooting interest.
Each level is a sort of clever geometric puzzle, where you try to figure out how to obliterate all of the pigs with the few birds you have.

The frustration is when you try and try and can't obliterate the pigs.
The fun is when you do, and go on to the next challenge.
You always want to get to the next challenge.
Many times it is easy.
Some times it seems near impossible.

When I had my Blackberry, my addiction was Brickbreaker.
That was a pretty good game.
The main order of business there was to try to beat your personal high score.
But it wasn't really all that creative.
Nor did it make all those angry noises and laughing grunts.

Technology has improved since then.

A free app was offered on my IPhone for Angry Birds, and I downloaded it.
After a length of time during which I became thoroughly addicted, and went through all the levels, I was offered the pay version.

See? That's how they get you.
Just like a Coke dealer.
I had to shell out 99 cents for the upgrade.
I bit the bullet and shelled it out.
I went through all of those levels.

Then I was offered "Angry Birds Rio".
Another 99 cents.

I see more on the horizon.

Eventually, it's going to break me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Wii Are Now Amused.

Okay.
So I tried the Wii Sports in my basement.
Golf.
Baseball.
Tennis.
Bowling.
Feh.
They all sucked.
My only hope for salvation was the Boxing.
It looked promising.
For one thing, you actually had to move around.
You actually had to throw punches, just like a boxer.
Exercise was beginning to take place.
Your opponents threw punches back at you, and here's the beauty part, if a punch landed on you, it didn't hurt.
That was always my fear in participating in REAL boxing.
That you could get hurt.
Here, you could get knocked down, you could get knocked out.
And it didn't hurt.
Actually, after a while, it DID start to hurt.
In my knees.
In my ankles.
Places where I've had surgery.
Or arthritis.

And this was caused by all the moving around.
I was almost ready to give it all up when my wife, a person much smarter than me, suggested that maybe I should wear an Ace Bandage on the sore parts.
Whattya know? I did that, and it stopped hurting.
Is it a matter of her being a genius, or me being an idiot?

I started by fighting easy opponents.
There are no options about how you start.
These opponents virtually never throw a punch at you if you are at all aggressive.
I felt like Joe Louis and his "Bum-of-the Month Club"
If you keep winning during the early stages, the opponents get tougher and tougher, to the point where it really gets competitive, and you can just as easily lose and get knocked out as win and knock out your opponent.

A word about the opponents: The graphics are not very sophisticated.
Even though the atmosphere and sound effects are great, the opponents tend to look like kewpie dolls.
They could do a better job there.
You choose a character for yourself.
Male or female.
And you take on all comers.
This presents a minor moral dilemma:
You occasionally face kewpie dolls who are women.
Even though they are kewpie dolls,I was raised to never hit a woman.

However, it also allowed me to act out some fantasies.
There are several women in my past whom I would have liked to have beaten up, but my sense of decorum wouldn't have allowed it.
But it's a great way to let out past aggressions.

You also take on opponents who are wearing eyeglasses.
I don't know what schmendrick thought of this, but it also flies in the face of my upbringing.
You never hit a man wearing glasses.
At least they haven't provided an opponent who is a woman and wears glasses.
That would be a double-whammy.

In any case, I invariably build up a major sweat when I participate in the Boxing.
It is great competition, and great exercise.
I particpate in Wii Boxing all the time.
And has made the purchase of Wii Sports well worth it.

Wii, Wii, Monsieur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Wii Are (For The Most Part) Not Amused.

My wife has continually been on me to get more exercise.
She is an exponent of this.
Even as I am writing now, she is downstairs in the basement, walking her daily mile on the treadmill.
To no avail, she has been encouraging me to do the same.
Or to at least take an occasional walk around the block.
My attitude about this is the same as it has always been-------
How do you keep score?
How do you win?
It's not that I'm so competitive.
It's just that I need something to make it not boring.
I admit to being one of the most sedentary people I know, but I'm not against the concept of exercise if it can only be made to be INTERESTING.

My wife recently attempted to rise to the challenge.
She purchased, and brought home, something called Wii Sports.
What it is, is simulated sports that you play with remote control devices that you hold in your hands while the sporting events appear magically on your TV screen, once you've hooked up the equipment.
I guess that eliminates some of the magic.

Apparently, this is something that is very popular with kids.
You'd think they would be more likely to engage in the real sports outdoors, or at least outside of their homes.
Because they are young enough to actually do well at these sports in real life.

So I opened the Wii Sports box, tried hooking up the equipment, and after several hours of it confounding me, was able to install it correctly.
I was actually eager for Wii Sports to actually provide me with some interesting exercise.
I was hoping for the best.
Because I consider myself too old to actually participate in most of the sports provided for real.
And I was never that good an athlete to begin with.

I looked at the menu of sports offered by Wii.
They consisted of Tennis, Golf, Baseball, Bowling, and Boxing.
I tried them one at a time.

1) Tennis---I figured that this would be a good one because Tennis always involved a lot of movement to cover the court.
I always used to build up a pretty good sweat playing tennis. It was a game that I used to actually be competitive with good players.
But this was doubles.
You weren't required to move much around the court.
And you weren't required to do much with your arm except make little baby swings.
It was very disappointing to say the least.

2) Golf---I was never very good at golf. But in this version, no matter how bad you were in real life, it was very difficult,if not impossible to hit a bad shot.
I've never hit a 240 yard drive in my life.
I never played a round of golf where I didn't top the ball at least half the time.
I never played a round of golf where my putts always went into the hole once they hit the green.
Here all those things happened consistently.
It was surreal golf, and of course, provided me with very little exercise.

3) Baseball----You only had control of the pitcher and the batter, which meant there was no strategy, very little arm movement and virtually no interest in continuing.

4) Bowling----There might have been some skill involved here, but there is not much exercise involved in REAL bowling.
A game that can be played while you are eating pizza.
It also involved very little exercise.

So that's four out of four disappointments.

My only hope left, before we were going to return the entire unit back to Best Buy, was if the Boxing was spectacular.
It certainly had a lot to live up to.
I was not optimistic.

What happened with the Boxing will be discussed next time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Half-Pink House.

For much of the time that I worked at Paramount Studios, I had an office that overlooked Gower Street.
Gower Street was usually featured in stock footage of the entrance of RKO Studios in the thirties and forties,with cars to match.
RKO went out of business, and my office, which used to be part of RKO, was now part of Paramount.
I don't know what you'd have seen if the cameras were turned around and you'd have seen the other side of Gower Street in the thirties and forties.
But if you'd looked out of my window in the seventies, what you'd have seen was a very seedy, slum-like neighborhood, populated primarily by Mexicans.
I'm not attempting to be racist here.
I'm just reporting the facts.
You didn't want my office because of the view.
It was a nice, roomy office, but the view was not one of the selling features.
I always tried to avoid driving down Gower Street to go to work.
I usually took Vine Street directly to Melrose Avenue, which at the time was also pretty seedy, but didn't seem as inherently dangerous as
Gower Street.
I did this because I was deathly afraid of finding myself stranded on Gower Steet trying to fix a flat tire.
This was NOT a safe neighborhood.
Even though it was right next to a major movie studio.
I tried very hard to ignore my exterior surroundings as much as possible.
Many days, you'd find me with the window shades pulled down.

But one day, something rather extraordinary happened.
I pulled up the window shades, and noticed that one half, (the left half, from my point of view) of a two-family house was painted bright pink.
I don't mean just pink.
Shocking pink.
The kind of pink you might associate with Pink Elephants.
Or the Pink Panther.
Or Pepto Bismol, but much more intensely bright.
The other half was gray.

This caused interesting things to enter my imagination:
The first, of course, being "Why is anyone doing this?"
The second being, "Why only half the house?"

You'd think that discussions between the two owners would have led to some negotiations and perhaps arguments as to whether this was a good idea.
And some settlement would have been reached to avoid this eyesore.
But maybe the two parties hated each other.
To quote the late, great Fats Waller, "One never knows, do one."

Now, I've never considered myself any kind of architechtural aesthete, but even I knew that this was an atrocity.

Literally two months went by.
I'd look out my window and see a half-pink two family house.
The other half remained gray.
And the owner of the gray half had to have been worried about the loss of property value of his home, being planted directly next to the pink half.
Not that the house could have been worth that much to begin with.

I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Would the owner of the pink half revert back to gray?
Or would the owner of the gray half bite the bullet and go pink?

A month after this, I opened the window shade to my office one morning, and the matter was resolved.
The two-family house was now entirely pink, in the exact same shade as the other half.
The concession was made.
Or perhaps the owner of the gray half found the pink starting to grow on him.
We'll never know.

In any case, it was Peace in Our Time, but the house now looked twice as atrocious.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Nanny Needs Her Louis.

Alas.
That's really all I can say.
Somebody decided to give Fran Drescher another TV series.
It's called "Happily Divorced" and it's on TV Land right after
"Hot In Cleveland", which I watch regularly.
Which doesn't help matters.
I can't stand Fran Drescher. So sue me.
It's not that she can't act. She can.
It's not that she doesn't have really good comedy chops. She does.
It's simply that voice.
And that laugh.
I can't get past either of them.
It's chalk on a blackboard.
It always has been.

I really thought that if anyone was going to be typecast after "The Nanny", it would be her.
Once it had left the airwaves, I had often thought "What the hell is she going to do with the rest of her life?"
I never figured "Another TV series".

And I was actually torn about watching it, at least once.
Rita Moreno was cast as a regular, playing her mother.
I love Rita Moreno.
I did a pilot with her once.
It was a joyous experience.
Mainly because of her. What a pro!

So I was, as Jimmy Durante would put it, "on the horns of a dilemmia".
One the one hand, Rita Moreno. On the other, Fran Drescher.
I Tivoed the first episode.
I started watching it.
Rita Moreno wasn't in the first five minutes.
Fran Drescher was.
So I never got to see Rita Moreno.
Five minutes was all I could take.

And I never went back.
And unfortunately, during "Hot In Cleveland", they do incessant promos for "Happily Divorced".
So I have to make sure that I Tivo "Hot In Cleveland" and only watch it that way and make sure that I'm quick on the fast forward trigger-finger.

Maybe she's a lovely person. I don't know.
I've never met her.
Maybe this is a harsh way to judge a stranger, but it's the only way at my disposal.

When "The Nanny" was in production, my friend Rick, whom I met when he enrolled in one of my writing classes, and has since become an outstanding writer, worked as a mechanic at LAX, working on the Lear Jets usually inhabited by celebrities.
Fran Drescher boarded one of his aircraft, about to fly off to somewhere.
One of Rick's other responsibilities was to help load the luggage into the baggage compartment.
Just as the plane was fully loaded, Fran Drescher's male assistant, described by Rick as overtly gay (he was probably a little more disparaging than that), went over to Rick and announced "The Nanny needs her Louis".
The assistant was referring to her Louis Vuitton travel bag.

Rick knew that this bag was one of the first things that was loaded on to the plane.
He sized up the situation, looked the assistant in the eye, and said
"Go tell the Nanny what she can do with her Louis!"

Imagining the look on her face when her assistant told her whatever he told her is my only pleasant memory of Fran Drescher.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you in the Tri-State Area, I'm doing a reading and signing of my book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", on Tuesday, August 2nd, at the
Huntington Book Revue, Huntington Long Island, at 7pm.
I look forward to seeing anyone who wants to see me.

******

The Weiner Comps. 7.

The two finalists come from the world of sports.
And neither of them are Tiger Woods.
Tiger Woods finishes third, in my estimation.

Without further ado, the two finalists are Bret Favre and Marv Albert, in how they compare to Anthony Weiner.
As they've both been anointed the semi-finalists, most of the grading here is how the two relate to each other.
How they relate to Weiner is secondary.

And it's neck and neck to the finish line.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--

Favre, although doing almost precisely what Weiner did, seems to have gotten you should pardon the expression a "pass" from the media.
His story has been relatively low profile.
However serious Marv's transgressions were, the media jumped all over him.
Favre, B+. Marv, A.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--

Favre--Not a great deal.

Marv, a humongous amount.
Favre, C. Marv, A.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--

Favre--none.

Marv--pled guilty to a misdemeanor.

Favre, A. Marv, C-.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--

Favre--no. He's still playing.

Marv--Originally, yes, but he's since made a full comeback.

Favre, D. Marv, B+.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
Favre--Precisely the same as Weiner's. It just didn't seem as creepy.

Marv--Although in a different category than Weiner's, at least as creepy, with the biting of the woman's back, and the wearing of women's clothes. Particularly with that bad toupee.
That's an image that sticks in my mind overwhelmingly for creepiness.

Favre, A+. Marv, A+.

This is the kind of thing that makes them both finalists.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

Favre. It's not what I recall significantly.
Marv--did some pretty good lying until the truth came out.

Favre, C-. Marv, B+

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
They both have totally recovered.

That these are the closest comps bode well for Weiner's future by my scientific calculations..

My very subjective Overall Grades comparing them to Weiner:

Marv, A+. Favre, A.

Marv wins. A close call, but I'm giving it to Marv.

Yes!!!!! And it counts!!!!!

It's been a long journey, but now it's over..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you in the Tri-State Area, I'm doing a reading and signing of my book, "Mark Rothman's Essays" at the Westport Connecticut Library on
Monday, August 1st, at 7:30pm.
Also,on Tuesday, August 2nd, at the Huntington Book Revue,
Huntington Long Island, at 7pm.
I look forward to seeing anyone who wants to see me.

******

The Weiner Comps. 6.

I'm going to attempt to accelerate the process by taking on four candidates today.
And they've all been candidates, politically, at one time or another, as has Anthony Weiner:
President Bill Clinton, Governor Mark Sanford, governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Senator John Edwards.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--

Clinton--Really just infidelity, blown way out of proportion by the impeachment trial.
Sanford--Also just infidelity, blown out of proportion by the hike on the Appalachian Trail in Argentina.
Schwarzenegger--Just infidelity, complicated by nothing, except maybe a complicated divorce.
Edwards--Just infidelity, complicated by a wife who's dying, but whom a lot of people didn't like too much.
D's for all.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--

Clinton--Considerable, particularly to his family.
Sanford--Unknown, really.
Schwarzenegger--None to him, plenty to Maria and probably all the Kennedys, whom you'd think would be embarrassment-proof by now.
Edwards--Loads of embarrassment all around.
Clinton, B+, Sanford, C-, Schwarzenegger, B-, Edwards, A.
Those grades are based on Weiner's level of embarrassment being the highest.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--

Clinton--Found guilty of perjury.
Sanford--No crime.
Schwarzenegger--No crime, unless you count "Jingle All The Way".
Edwards--The jury is literally out.
Clinton, D. Sanford, A. Schwarzenegger, A-, Edwards, C.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--

Clinton--No.
Sanford--No, although he was almost forced to.
Schwarzenegger--Was already a former Governor when the scandal hit. Now back to making moom pitchas.
Edwards--Was virtually unemployed at the time.
D's for all.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--

Clinton--Paula Jones.
Sanford--Is it really creepy that it was apparently more than just sex?
Schwarzenegger--The potential menagerie of illegitimate children he has strewn upon the landscape.
Edwards--Rielle Hunter.
D's for all.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

Clinton--Staggering.
Sanford--Considerable.
Schwarzenegger--Not really overt.
Edwards--Major.
Clinton, A+, Sanford, B+, Schwarzenegger, C-, Edwards, A.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:

Clinton--It's already been total.
Sanford--None.
Schwarzenegger--Depends on how the next few movies do.
Edwards--Less than none
Weiner, too soon to tell.
So, no grades.

Overall Grades comparing them to Weiner:

Clinton, C-, Sanford, C-, Schwarzenegger C+, Edwards, B.

We can do better than these.

Next time, the two finalists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you in the Tri-State Area, I'm doing a reading and signing of my book, "Mark Rothman's Essays" at the Westport Connecticut Library on
Monday, August 1st, at 7:30pm.
Also,on Tuesday, August 2nd, at the Huntington Book Revue,
Huntington Long Island, at 7pm.
I look forward to seeing anyone who wants to see me.

******

The Weiner Comps. 5.

A couple of people who, prior to today, were probably never mentioned in the same sentence:
Michael Jackson, and Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyovich.
Two more different scandals could not possibly be imagined.
Let's see how it relates to Anthony Weiner.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--
Jacko---major questioning of his sexuality,his criminality, his pedophilia, and his eagerness to settle heavyweight lawsuits.
Blago---Similar type nicknames, but otherwise only questioning of his honesty and intelligence.
Nothing relating to his sexuality.
Jacko,B+. Blago, D.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
Jacko--Perversion, proven or not, naturally leads to embarrassment.
Blago--Corruption in Illinois seems to be a license to not be embarrassed.
Jacko, A. Blago, D.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
Jacko--The jury is technically out, but in all reality, it's technically in.
You don't have fourteen children "Sleeping with you" and then settle all those enormous lawsuits.
You don't settle ANY.
The law must have been broken.
Blago---Was just convicted on most counts.
Neither of these really relate to Weiner.
He committed no crime that we know of.
Jacko, D. Blago, D.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
Jacko---persevered, somewhat successfully, until his death.
Blago--Didn't get to resign. Was essentially thrown under the jail.
Jacko, D. Blago, B-.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
Jacko---About as creepy as you can get.
Blogo---Creepiness not really an element.
Jacko, A. Blogo D.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

Jacko--It's hard to know what Jacko really believed about himself.
Blago---Lying is in his DNA.
Jacko, C-. Blago, A.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Jacko. He's dead, so none.
Blago. He's figuratively dead, so none
Weiner's odds have to be at least somewhat better than this
Jacko, D. Blago, D.

Overall Rating--Jacko, C. Blago, D.

Except for the creepiness factor for Jacko, there is no real comp factor in existence here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Weiner Comps. 4.

This one's virtually an entry:

Former Governor Jim McGreevey of New Jersey, and former Senator Larry Craig of Idaho.

The common threads: They're both gay, although Craig won't admit it.
And they're both politicians, like Weiner.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--
All there was with McGreevey was being gay.
He never portrayed himself as anti-gay.
He just was what he was.
Craig was the toe-tapper in the Minneapolis airport men's room.
However serious, it was an enormous brouhaha.
McGreevey, D. Craig, B+.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
McGreevey did shlep his wive uponstage for the apology, but then sort of faded into oblivion.
Craig couldn't have been more embarrassing if he tried.
As was Weiner.
McGreevey, D. Craig, B+.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
McGreeevey--It's no crime to be gay, although many states would like it to be.
Craig pleaded to a misdemeanor.
No crime for Weiner.
McGreevey, A-. Craig, D+.
.
4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
McGreevey resigned.
Craig went down swinging, did not resign, but could not win re-election.
Weiner bailed.
McGreevey, A. Craig, C.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--

McGreevey----Nothing necessarily creepy about being gay.
Craig---Toe tapping in the public men's room? Pretty creepy.
McGreevey, D. Craig, A+.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

I don't recall McGreevey lying.
I don't recall Craig NOT lying.
Nor Weiner. Until he got caught.
McGreevey, D. Craig, A-.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:

McGreevey and Craig are both gone. Probably.for good.
Who knows with Weiner?
That's what we're trying to determine.

Overall Grades: McGreevey, D+. Craig, B+.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Weiner Comps. 3.

Two members of the World of Sports today-----
Tiger Woods and Michael Vick.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--
With Vick, I guess it's a matter of how you feel about dogs, and dogs biting each other until one of them is dead.
With Tiger, it's how you feel about serial adultery.
There was a serial nature to both of these scandals, as there is with Weiner.
With Weiner, it's about how you feel about sending out pictures of your privates.
I am a dog lover, and am rather indifferent to adultery in principle.
So I give Vick a D, and Tiger an A.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
With Vick, there was probably a macho element that appealead to his base.
Not much embarrassment there.
With Tiger, a mixture of embarrassment about how stupid he was to get caught so easily and how much it will end up costing,
and a certain swagger about being someone none of us ever pictured ever having sex or even thinking about it.
Vick gets a D. Tiger gets an A.

Tiger could end up being a finalist.
Far closer to Weiner than I had originally imagined.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
Vick went to the slammer for what was in fact his crime.
Tiger did not commit a crime.
It's starting to look like Vick doesn't even belong in this discussion.
And Tiger is looking better and better.
Vick, D. Tiger, A.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
They both took "time off" from their careers.
Vick in the slammer, Tiger in seclusion.
And Weiner resigned.
A for both Vick and Tiger.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
No sexual indiscetion for vick with the dogs (as far as we know), so it's not an issue.
With Tiger, it's not so much creepiness as silliness,
As I stated previously, what Weiner has admitted to seems pretty perverse, and he's practically a newlywed.
D for both.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:
Weiner was the only one carrying on about his innocence.
D for both.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Vick's already back in the NFL. Away from dogs.
Tiger still seems to be struggling on the golf course.
Too early to tell.

Overall Grade: D+ for Vick. A- for Tiger.

Tiger has a genuine shot at this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Weiner Comps. 2.

Starting today, I'm going to attempt to take on two challengers at a time.
In this instance, two candidates who bring very similar traits to the table:
Former Democratic Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer, and current Republican Senator from Louisiana, David Vitter.
How do they compare to each other and to Weiner?

1) Seriousness of the scandal--They were virtually the same as each other.
Both involved cheating on their wives with hookers.
Spitzer seemed a little more culpable, because he had built a reputation for prosecuting hookers.
Vitter just did general moral railing against the idea of them.
Weiner, as far as we know, had nothing to do with hookers, or perhaps touching any women of any kind.
D.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
Both seem to have survived their marriages
They both had their wives standing next to them when they made their public apologies.
And again, it was just hookers. How embarrassing can it be?
Both far less creepy than sending pictures of your privates out over the Internet.
Weiner has survived his marriage as well, so there's a limit to how low a grade I can give.
C.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
Soliciting prositutes is in fact a crime.
Weiner didn't do that, and as far as we know, didn't commit any other crime.
D.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
In Spitzer's case, yes.
In Vitter's case, no.
Weiner resigned.
It seems to be the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Spitzer, A.
Vitter, D.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
There's nothing perverse about the need for hookers in a marriage that has gone on for quite a while.
What Weiner has admitted to seems pretty perverse, and he's practically a newlywed.
D.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:
They all lied, but Weiner's lying has been a lot louder and more prolonged before he caved.
B-.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Vitter's still in the Senate. Even got re-elected.
Spitzer had his own series on CNN, and there are already rumors about him jumping back into politics
With Weiner, too early to tell.

Overall Grade: C.

That they're all politicians indicate that I can't give it a lower grade than a C.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Just A Brief Note.

I watched "Curb Your Enthusiasm" tonight, and in a scene in a restaurant with Larry David, Richard Lewis, and Jeff Garlin, Larry tossed a
throwaway line: "Colonel, I had no idea that Marilyn MONroe was on the base".
A "Sergeant Bilko" reference that I have attempted to maintain the level of popularity of on this blog.
He did the full accentuation on the "MON".
Could he be one of my readers?
Or are he and I simply exactly on the same wavelength?
In any case, I'm pleased.

More Weiner Comps on Tuesday.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Finally, The Weiner Comps Begin.

Enough time has gone by that I feel that I have to restate the criteria for the Weiner Comps.
This will be based on several criteria:

1) Seriousness of the scandal.

2) Degree of embarrassment he caused to himself and others.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job.

5) Nature of the sexual indiscretion.

6) The extent to which lying was involved.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal.

See? That last one is what makes this a scientific endeavor.
The closest comp will be the best indicator of what will become of
Anthony Weiner.
So I'm not just frittering away my time and yours.
Along the way, we will visit the usual suspects.
And maybe some we've all forgotten about.
Grades will be handed out.
Much like report card grades.
Grades of comparability.
The one with the highest grade is the closest match to Anthony Weiner.

The one thing I can't quite recall clearly about all of these instances is which ones of these, for lack of a better word, scoundrels, actually had their wives up on stage next to them as they were apologizing to America as a whole.
Weiner didn't.
But I don't think that this is a major factor.
I think it's more of a reflection on their spouses than on the apologists.
If I do remember specifically about certain cases, I will certainly make note of it.
Again, as with other lists of this type, I pretty much have an idea of where I'm heading with this.
But in many cases, I will be flying by the seat of my pants in making the judgements.
And they will not be in any particular order, because I really for the most part don't know what the order is.

Let's begin with David Letterman:

1) Seriousness of the scandal---not nearly as serious as Weiner's.
Dave was able to make jokes about it as soon as the smoke was just starting to clear.
C-.

2) Degree of embarrassment he caused to himself and others--
The guy who was blackmailing him caused the embarrassment.
All Letterman did was have the affairs.
Lots of men have affairs.
Very few send pictures of their privates on the Internet.
Dave isn't a politician, nor has he set himself up as a paragon of virtue.
It's almost the opposite.
D.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
There was, but not by Dave. Nor was there one committed by Weiner.
B+.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
For Dave, no. He handled the whole thing with aplomb.
For Weiner, yes. He really botched the whole thing, P.R. wise.
D-.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
One was overtly sexual, the other was apparently just creepy.
Actually, considering how young Letterman's internes were, that was pretty creepy too.
C.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:
We didn't even know about Dave's situation until he openly made a clean breast of things. With Weiner, it was deny, deny, deny, until he was pinned to the wall.
D-.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Dave recovered from Day 1.
We have no idea at this point with Weiner.
C+.

The only other thing they both have in common is that I've never seen either of their wives.

Overall Grade: C-.

I think we'll be able to do much better than this.

Well, this is your first taste of the Weiner Comps.
Hope you're looking forward to more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Anthony Weiner Will Just Have To Wait.

I promise you I'll get to the Weiner Comps, but Anthony will most likely be around for a long time.
Sherwood Schwartz won't.
He just died at the age of 95.

Sherwood Schwartz was a television icon.
He was certainly the most influential person working in television regarding a specific generation.
Sherwood Schwartz was the creator and Executive Producer of "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch".
These two shows had enormous appeal to the generation immediately succeeding mine.
I found this rather unfathomable at the time.
I've still never understood it.
I thought these were two of the worst shows ever to come down the pike.
The fact that the immediately succeeding generation embraced them as they did gave me the distorted impression that I was part of the last generation that had a genuine sense of humor.
And that I'll never be threatened by a future generation of comedy writers, because there won't be any.
But that kind of skipped a generation.
And a wave, a sunami, if you will, of new young really funny comedy writers took things over.
I wonder how much regard Tina Fey has for "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch".
In my mind, these shows were never funny.
I even got the impression that they weren't even TRYING to be funny.
Except maybe when "Gilligan's Island" brought in the Harlem Globetrotters.
And then I thought it was just as a goof.
I mentioned in a previous article that some shows just strive to be FUN, as opposed to FUNNY.
I believe that these shows fell into this category.
And I suppose they succeeded in that regard.
To the point where people growing up with them can quote episodes chapter and verse.
I knew that Sherwood Schwartz was certainly capable of being very funny.
He was Red Skelton's head writer for quite a few years.
He used to write for Bob Hope.
These were very demanding men, and certainly no slouches when it came to funny.
So Sherwood must have been capable of playing hardball with the best of them.
But left to his own devices, he seemed to prefer softball.

There was one way that I did find "Gilligan's Island" funny.
If you watched it with the sound off.
You'd stare at the screen and continually be dumbfounded as to how the characters got from one location or scene to another.
But that was about it.

A couple of interesting things about "Gilligan's Island":
It only ran three seasons.
People think it must have run at least twelve.
No. Only three.
Also, it is fairly common knowledge that the actors did not receive much in residuals, and they ran out rather quickly.
So none of them got rich off of it.
Sherwood Schwartz made a fortune.
That's how it goes.
I've known several of the actors from it.
None of them begrudged Sherwood for this.
They all seemed to love him personally.
One of the great ironies is that there were others who profited quite nicely from it:
Phil Silvers' daughters.

Phil Silvers had a deal with CBS to do "The New Phil Silvers Show" in the early 1960's.
The show was not worth anyone's attention.
Certainly not anyone who had seen the Old Phil Silvers show, where he played Sergeant Bilko.
As part of the deal, Phil was offered profit participation in one of three sitcoms to appear on CBS's fall lineup that year.
One of them was "Gilligan's Island".
Another was "The Baileys of Balboa", which starred his old Colonel, Paul Ford.
I forget what the third one was.
Phil, for what must have seemed a mystifying reason to some, chose "Gilligan's Island".
And his daughters have been living high off the hog ever since.
That's why, if you notice in the "Gilligan's Island" credits, it says that it is a "Gladasya" production.
"Gladasya" was Phil Silvers' eternal catchphrase.
I consider this all ironic because one of the worst sitcoms ever done provided wealth for the family of one of the purveyors of the best sitcom ever done.

I had an opportunity to meet Sherwood Schwartz about twelve years ago.
He attended one of my plays in Los Angeles.
He attended because Dawn Wells, who played Mary Ann on "Gilligan" was the female lead.
Sherwood Schwartz was a class act.
At least that night.
Whenever industry people attend plays in L.A., particularly important ones like Sherwood, they expected to be comped into the theatre.
Sometimes they'd be adamant about it.
Sherwood Schwartz arrived at the theatre.
I recognized him immediately.
I assumed Dawn had left tickets for him, as comps.
No.
Sherwood reached into his wallet, pulled out cash, and paid full price for his tickets.
I was impressed.

Afterwards, Dawn introduced me to Sherwood.
He couldn't have been more complimentary about the play and my work on it.
He did a complete analysis on it that I, of course, thought was dead on.

As a result of that evening, Sherwood Schwartz could do no wrong.
And I'm very sad to learn of his passing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Weiner Comps.

Maybe you've noticed.
Maybe you haven't.
But I have not written one word about the Anthony Weiner scandal.
Until now.
And now, I'm probably the last person with a blog to bring up the subject.
"Why?", you might ask.
Because while it was on the front page of every newspaper, I simply didn't think I had anything to add to the discussion.
It has taken me all this time to realize that I do.
So even though I'm late to the party, I'm now going to jump in.

Over at least the next couple of sessions, I'm going to try to determine the closest comparable celebrity scandal to Anthony Weiner's.
Much like I did when trying to come up with the closest comparable singer to Eddie Fisher the week that he died.
And just recently, by determining that Walter Matthau was the closest comparable actor to Peter Falk.

This will be based on several criteria:

1) Seriousness of the scandal.

2) Degree of embarrassment he caused to himself and others.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job.

5) Nature of the sexual indiscretion.

6) The extent to which lying was involved.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal.

See? That last one is what makes this a scientific endeavor.

The closest comp will be the best indicator of what will become of
Anthony Weiner.

So I'm not just frittering away my time and yours.

Along the way, we will visit the usual suspects.
And maybe some we've all forgotten about.
Grades will be handed out.
Much like report card grades.
Grades of comparability.
The one with the highest grade is the closest match to Anthony Weiner.

The one thing I can't quite recall clearly about all of these instances is which ones of these, for lack of a better word, scoundrels, actually had their wives up on stage next to them as they were apologizing to America as a whole.
Weiner didn't.
But I don't think that this is a major factor.
I think it's more of a reflection on their spouses than on the apologists.
If I do remember specifically about certain cases, I will certainly make note of it.

So, see ya next time, as we dig in to "The Weiner Comps".

Let the fun begin!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Know Your Audience. 2.

Harkening back to last time, when you are in a position of power over people who are trying to force spec scripts upon you, what factors are usually applied that determine whether or not you actually open the envelope containing said spec script, leaving you open to possible litigation and probable embarrassment if you are trapped into having to offer an opinion about what you have read?

In one instance early on in my career, when I was head writing on "The Odd Couple", when I was still somewhat of a softy, I insisted that
another letter be sent along absolving me from any charges of plagiarism.
I only made this insistence after outright pleading and begging over the phone by the prospective spec script submitter, before we had the screening process down to an exact science.
Many promises were made by the submitter.
About how this was easily the best spec script I was ever going to receive.
About how he knew "The Odd Couple" inside and out.
About how everyone he had shown the script to had told him that it was the best "Odd Couple script they had ever read.
This begs the question "How many "Odd Couple" scripts could everyone he had shown his script to have read?"
I was dubious at the prospect, but I had been systematically worn down.

So I received the letter of absolvement, and opened the envelope.
At least it was the right length, unlike the page-and-a-half full of "Howyoudo's" submitted by my relatives, which was never actually in an envelope to be returned unopened.
But that's the best that could be said about it.
In most respects, it was far worse than the page-and-a-half full of "Howyoudos".

The word most accurately describing it was "belabored"
It contained this massive, pointless scene about how Murray the Cop was eating a hamburger, and the thrust of the alleged comedy was how his breath was making Felix and Oscar nauseous because it smelled from onions.
Fifteen minutes of dialogue about onions and Felix and Oscar being nauseous about it.

It also had the added bonus of consistently having the word "onions", whether in dialogue, or description, spelled "Oinions".
And the payoff to the scene, which involved Murray having not the slightest clue why Felix and Oscar were acting less than positive towards him, was Felix saying to him "Murray, it's because you're eating OINIONS!"
(His caps, not mine)
We went into full "avoiding ever taking this spec script submitter's calls in the future" mode.
But some people are just too persevering.
These were the days before Caller I.D, and it was too easy for any caller to get through if he happened to pick the right time.
So I found myself confronted once again by this man, who tried to pin me down about the script.
At first, I told him there was nothing wrong with it.
I was met with "So when are you going to shoot it?"
I then had to inform him that we weren't going to shoot it.
I was then met with "I don't understand. Why wouldn't you shoot it? All my friends think it's great!"
I had to explain that all of his friends don't work on this show.
He pinned me down to the point that I had to break down and tell him that not only wasn't it going to be shot, but it was immediately going to be thrown into the trashcan.
It was easily the worst spec script we had ever read.
"What was wrong with it?" he inquired.
"What wasn't?. You gave more dialogue to Murray the Cop than to Oscar and Felix. You did a fifteen minute scene on making people nauseous, which would likely make the audience nauseous too. And you consistently misspelled "onions", turning it into "oinions".
He responded "Well that was just a typo."
I said "It's a typo if you do it once. After ten times, it's a lifestyle".

It soon became clear to him that we were not going to do his script.
I'm sure he had lovely things to say about me to his friends who adored the script.

To this day, in my house, and in my sister's house (My sister used to work for me at the time), the word "onions" doesn't exist.

It has been replaced, now and forever by "oinions".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Know Your Audience.

When you are in a position of power in the world of television or film writing, you have to exercise much caution about accepting spec scripts.
For various reasons.
One is that you always run the risk of being sued if there is the trace of a notion in something you've written that shows up on the screen that even slightly resembles a piece of spec material you've received.
Spec material is usually quite awful, so having to steal from a spec script makes you a particularly low brand of lowlife.
Good spec material is so much more the exception than the rule.
It's how I got my start, so early on in my career, I suppose I was a little more sympathetic than most.
But I usually wouldn't read any of it.
It was usually returned unopened, sparing me from any conceivable litigation.
But occasionally, I was forced, yea confronted, with spec material that was already opened, and was forced to read and comment upon.

I mentioned that when I was recently in Arizona, and a ten year old child and I were discussing Black and White TV, that she was also a writing student.
And that she asked me some questions about writing.
And that my answers satisfied her.
This was one of the stories I told her--------

A couple of close family members were invited to my house during my one-season wonder days in the late 70's.
Blood relatives.
People I couldn't throw out of my house.
There was information that they had withheld from me about their appearance that evening.
They had collaborated on a script for my current series.
They had high hopes for this collaborative effort.
This was going to skyrocket them into a show business success at least equal to their relative.
Meaning me.
I wasn't at all concerned in the least about getting sued.
But I was going to have to read it.
In front of them.
And I, being the worst poker player in the world, could not possibly bullshit my way into convincing them that I loved it if in fact I didn't.
Nor could I conceal my rage at being imposed upon like this.
So I guess I was praying that it would in fact be great, and be the answer to their show business prayers.
My prayers were not answered.
One of the main problems was that most scripts for half-hour sitcoms were between 40 and 50 pages.
This script was a page-and-a-half.
Noticing this, I thought to myself "This had better be the best page-and-a-half ever written, or it's going to be a Red Alert."
It wasn't the best page-and-a-half ever written.
It was an atrocity.
At this point, it's brevity was an asset.
Aside from it's poor punctuation and grammar, it contained a Cardinal Sin.
My friends and I, some writers, some just friends, had an expression that we used with each other.
To make each other laugh.
It was derived from Buddy Hackett's Chinese Waiter routine.
In it, he would greet each customer by saying, in an Oriental accent, "Howyoudo???!!!"
So my friends and I would always find ways to pepper our conversations with "Howyoudo????!!!".
It usually made us laugh quite consistently.

I swear to you, in that page-and-a-half, there were at least eight "Howyoudo???!!!!'s".
I said to my relatives, what's with all the "Howyoudo's"?
They responded with "Well you and your friends are always saying it.
We thought you'd think it was funny".

I had to say to them, "You know, I've been involved in an awful lot of half-hour sitcoms.
You've come to an awful lot of filmings of them.
Have you ever, once, in your whole lives, ever hear one of our characters ever say "Howyoudo"?
They replied that they hadn't.
I pressed ahead.
"Has it ever occurred to you WHY you've never heard any of our characters say "Howyoudo"?
They admitted that it never had occurred to them.
I continued. "Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the audience wouldn't have the slightest idea why they WOULD say "Howyoudo"?
That maybe it was just an inside joke among friends?
That it was not meant for America's ears?
And if it was, it would require a lot of explanation?
Which isn't provided in your page-and-a-half?"

Seeing that their hopes were dashed, they gave up.

I wished they had seen it before they put me through my ordeal, and I put them through theirs.

So my lesson to that little girl in Arizona was "If you want to write sitcoms know who you are writing for.
You're not writing for your own amusement.
You're not writing for your friends.
You're writing for millions of people whom you don't know personally.
If you can bring your own voice to it, that's great.
But first and foremost, you're writing for America.
And if you get really lucky, you're writing for the world".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******