Thursday, August 04, 2005

Roeper and My Aging Fear

The blog is essentially the answer to a question I pose to Richard Roeper, although the Times has a higher level of readers than this cyber shithole.

The following is a response/hate letter to someone I have long thought to be a goon. For those who know, Richard Roeper, besides sucking Roger Ebert’s prick, writes for one of the easier to read newspapers in Chicago (the Trib is so cumbersome) and his columns have gone a long way toward ruining its reputation as a source for serious news. He writes like Dear Abbey with a chip on her shoulder and a tumor pressing against the logic center of her brain. There may be no end to his inanity, but we should all gather around and thank him, along with ellipsis happy Larry King, for being early bloggers, albeit via newsrags. He basically gets paid to write whatever the hell crosses his feeble mind, much like bloggers save for the getting paid part. Recently, the Dove Real Beauty ads (http://www.dove.com/real_beauty/default.asp) have crossed that shallow terrain.

I should add that I love this advertisement as it features what I think to be attractive women—none of them waifs—scantly clad. They are curvy, they are real, hence the name of the ad. And they look like real women and that’s what I like. I like women to look like women. Kate Moss? It would be like fucking a tall boy.

Roeper, as far as I can tell, made some comment about how he prefers thinner women and may or may not have used the term “idealized beauty”. It pissed off every woman in the Chicago area. I don’t read his column, but I got wind of the mini controversy (and Roeper was praying for controversy I am sure) and checked out his rebuttal. Anyone can find that by typing his name into Google but that might require reading his column and that is not something I am trying to endorse, thus no link is provided.

The email:

8/3/05

Dear Hack:

"I'm not the one putting these images and messages out there; I'm just a guy reacting to them."

True, and I am not about to chastise you for your comments or what I or anyone else perceives them to be. I will, however, state that your role as one who reacts to messages strikes me as absurd. I find your opinions reactionary and your column to be fluff. Being in the Zen like position of the water reflecting the image requires wisdom. Sadly, your editors disagree.

I like how Ebert made you his sidekick, thus avoiding the intellectual challenges and confrontation Gene offered. You are the luckiest guy in Chicago. How many of us two-bit opinion holders get such an outlet as the Sun-Times? Tell us the secret, Rich.

I suppose I should have left it alone, but what the hell? The guy needs to be taken down a peg or two. I doubt I have done that. I am sure he gets scads of hate mail and even more fan letters. There are a lot of barely literate folk in Chicago who think he has something to say. I have two significant fears: (1.) Roeper, like many journalists, producers, politicians, writers, and hack-artists, is contributing to the overall dumbing down of my country. (2.) I am growing into an old crank who writes hate letters to strangers.

I am depressed.