Friday, June 18, 2010

"Ladies & Gentlemen, I Give You -- a Clown!" Cosmoetica's Dan Schneider, Subject of a High-Minded Gchat Discussion

Let me preface this post with two apologies: 1.) I apologize for the sardonic-irreverent tone I'll be taking in the following (as already evidenced by the title), which I honestly hope doesn't detract from the general earnestness with which I approach reading and analyzing literature on this blog (although I acknowledge my posts have frequent tongue-in-check moments just in general, so whatever).

And 2.) I'm sorry for even bringing up the subject of Cosmoetica.com creator and visionary, Dan Schneider, all 6'1" 195 lbs. of him, whom I think debases the discourse merely with his being cited -- and I understand that in so doing I likewise give his "criticism" some level of validity, for which I also want to apologize profusely. So I guess all told that's really three apologies.

Moving on . . .

I co-founded and used to write for an exceedingly unpopular website called The Weekly Johnson. If we specialized in anything it was humor, I suppose. And for a variety of good reasons we discontinued work on the site in 2008 or so. But ya know, shucks, I still remember it fondly -- and recently I let my curiosity get the better of me and searched to see if anyone out there on the Internet-scape was curious about what had become of it. Mostly, predictably, no one had wondered -- pro, con, or neutrally.

That is, with the notable exception of Dan Schneider, who was at some point the subject of an article by my friend and site co-founder, Jamie Ferguson, entitled: "Dan Schneider: Douche Bag".

The WJ now belongs to the internet's Way Back Machines, left to be dissected by future anthropologists or whatsoever might subsume and displace that particular scientific discipline, perhaps something involving cybernetics?

Dan Schneider, meanwhile, remains very much active and screed-ey. And long story made short: Dan apparently found Jamie's article and decided to respond in a way only he would. Good for him, I say.

And but anyway, here in the Rowanverse the fourth law of poetastering is: the Schneiderverse is a, as the delightful Homer Simpson might say, groin-grabbingly awful milieux of the abounding excruciating minutiae that is his oeuvre. But that's not my opinion; that's the law.

And Thus We Respond to Dan with: A High-Minded Gchat Discussion of All Things Schneiderian Whence The Rowanverse:

Matt: hey
found out some stuff
you might be interested - Dan Schneider apparently responded
to that article you wrote about him in the WJ

Jamie: wait, like 3 or 4 years ago?

Matt: he says we're wannabe hipster losers
He's amazingJamie: ha, my goodness
methinks the bard must have googled himself

Matt: methinks he certainly did.
you should see, it gets really megalomaniacal
um, I happen to have 150 million viewers a year
I'm perpetually on the nation's lips.

I think people know who I am

Jamie:
aaaaah. idiocy is like a fine wine.

Matt:
the only case he has, really, is that the article is glib
but that was the point to begin with

Jamie:
I barely remember writing this.
he's right, though-
i envied him terribly.
still do.

Matt: good god, I know. he doesn't do the best job of refuting
arguments, which might surprise you or perhaps not surprise
you quite so much. his fame... renowned.
you wish you had a Wikipedia article

Jamie: ha! "a liar or an obsessive!" i read one hour's worth of
his barfings one day years ago. and that line was control-c'd
straight off of his damn website. if i was going to slander him
and create typos, why the hell would i choose
something boring like "ensconced"?!?

Matt:
its possible he leaves typos in his articles all the time

Jamie: did he really save this up in the hate box under his
bed for years? he's so delightfully sad

Matt:
that's the thing I took away from it

Jamie:
he was like our only reader, apparently

Matt: i literally can't think of anyone else who read it.
anyone we can VERIFY read it, anyway

the fact that he decided to respond says more than
anything else

Jamie: DAN: as for incestual, it's called a neologism.
ME: fine, here's another:
retardulate
it's what you are, and what you do.

Matt: anyone with a child's grasp of reality could
rip this fool apart. he's a buffoon

Jamie: yay!

Matt: intelligent people use neologisms all the time!

Jamie: naturally. i know that, too. i utilianate
them oftenday

Matt: I wish we still had a copy of the post
somewhere.

Jamie: yep
jon's reading cosmoetica

Matt:
I sometimes see links to it
on various lit things
but never has anyone mentioned anything in
praise of Schneider although apparently
roger ebert did for some reason

Jamie:
Jon ‎(1:53 PM): ah! so he made up a word
because he was afraid his readers would think
most poets had sex with close
family members

Jon ‎(1:56 PM):
he was lead, after searching deep within the
annals of the internet, to a site
that's been defunct for 3 years

Jon ‎(1:57 PM):
whooooooooa - readership of 150 million...
7 billion hits

Jon ‎(2:03 PM):
this guy is a treasure, wow

Jon ‎(2:04 PM):
every sentence just piles it on
oh, he's not really fat? how wrong you were! what a
fool you've been!

Matt: hahahaaha
i can't believe he wants to prove he's not fat!

Jamie: i know
um, I've got news for you, dan! I actually DON'T
eat papa john's, so
there's another little "fact" you got wrong!

Matt: he proves our every point with wicked efficiency.
it's like he said
oh, a taste of my own medicine, eh?
well how do you like a taste of MY own medicine!

Jamie: you think you can reveal me as the asshole
i am by parroting my childish writing and ad hominem
attacks? how about some ad hominem attacks, typist?!?

Matt: an American hero.

Jamie:
Jon ‎(2:21 PM): oh wait, even better, here's his take on HIS WIFE:

"Jessica is a great poet, but not nearly as vast nor sweeping as I
was (I stopped writing poetry in 2005-
I simply was not challenged by it any longer)."

Matt: this is about the stupidest stuff I've ever read

Jamie: really? "just about"?

Matt: "If most editors and publishers
were as devoted to quality
as I was, we would have less deforestation,
better literature, and most of the good
published writers could,
indeed, make a living. In short, I walk the walk
that others only talk." - Dan Schneider
must destroy Dan Schnieder...
not much time...
puking guts out...

Jamie: really, here's what I should say-
today, I am destroyed. a few years ago, i sarcastically
wrote a piece that on the surface attacked
Dan Schneider- a man I envy more than anything in the world.
i called him a douchebag, a moron,
and a "superheated sack of his own ego,
amongst other things."
how is it possible that people couldn't tell I was joking?
how could ANYONE say such terrible things about him?
"A moron," really? have you SEEN how many
neologisms the man uses?

Matt: "Shakespeare has no more than a dozen great sonnets.
I wrote a series called American Sonnets,
with 154 to match Shakespeare's total output.
You'd have a hard time arguing I missed out on
greatness in a dozen of them." -Dan Schneider.
i am not kidding. he actually said that.
and without further ado, the Schneiderian sonnet.
let history judge. Christopher Guest has
his next muse, if nothing else.

Jamie: today, the world cries,
because Dan Schneider continues to exist.

Matt: today, Dan Schneider cries,
because wah wah wah wah wah!

FIN

4 comments:

  1. I cannot wait for Dan to respond to this.......in 2014. PS who would marry this guy?!?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am imagining a woman who is very eager to please, very much harried to the point of being cowed. Then again, Dan will probably yell at me for even suggesting that notion. "Um . . . no, sorry troglodyte, once again you demonstrate how very little you know. My wife happens to be among the most assertive, liberated people on the planet. Second, certainly, only to me. Return to tonguing the glans of the incestual lit scene at once, little troll!" Something like that. Or perhaps I'll be hearing from Dan's lawyer(s). Too soon to tell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's true though. Shakespeare wrote about a ton of love stuff and solidified the form, but when you look at something like the below, which begins with a riveting cosmic image of the Earth and is swallowed into a natural image of everyday life, and then extending into a lingering ending, you know that this kills a lot of Shakespeare stuff.

    I mean Willy had meter, but what does meter matter when you have such intensity? Scrolling through his poetry, he takes on so many themes, voices, etc... Did you even read the long poem on America which starts with a historical conception, even throws in a Nixon parody halfway, and ends with a Sci-fi alien war? If Dan had like 1000 of those stuff in varied tones I would want to read all of it. He even wrote a double Sestina on the twin towers just because he could.

    You'd have a better case if you actually had a line-by-line critique of the poems, like Dan usually does for his own. On the other hand, I think if Dan has an ego, he deserves it, because his critiques are jackassery but also has meat. Shame on you for attacking the artist without attacking the art itself.

    THE PASSING

    There are years to go before the last perfect day
    on Earth. Then the sun will begin to swell, and life
    will cease, shorelines will retreat as oceans boil,
    and all will glow a barren red and airless gray.
    By then I will be shadow, long dead. Now, I live
    amid joys and sorrows, with the love of a girl
    in a backseat, behind her mommy and daddy,
    as they pilgrim to a motel in New Hampshire,

    blowing kisses out her window to teenage strays,
    drunk in a sportscar, honking and cursing at her
    family squareback's pace, as they are full on passing,
    as if they are ready to face eternal sleep,

    as they leave her family behind on the highway,
    that is endless, and endless, and everything.

    (If you do reply to this, and any of your replies happen to be attacking personality rather than content of the Art, I will label you illogical and ignore you completely. Nietzsche could make doing that fun and lyrical, but you aren't Nietzsche.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This poem is garbage. It reads like the singing of the tone deaf and its imagery is as cliched as the worst sort of nascent work of an aspirant teenage poet. Cool if you like it. But I suspect you're Dan Schneider on another account.

      Delete