Testimony Of Nate Green

64 thoughts on “Testimony Of Nate Green”

1. This is miles better than the actual “Book Byrning” storyine

   1. So she did have a security camera the whole time, but didn’t share this information with the fire department or police for whatever reason?

2. The line for standing in line for this epic tale starts here. Good sir, I am the first to stand in line for standing in line today.

   1. I, too, stand in the “I Stand In Line” line!

      1. I too stand in line for this stand-in story featuring a line-up of characters I can’t stand, who will be taking the stand and saying lines that will stand on their head the story of The Village Booksmith’s Last Stand, in which longstanding standards are questioned in a line of inquiry that no-one will understand.

3. This bullshit is all Les Moore’s fault. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the mob is a rep company he hired to make himself look good.

4. It’s back to Sherlock Holmes.

   In his essay on “The Simple Art of Murder,” Raymond Chandler notes that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was guilty of errors which invalidated his stories. (Perhaps the best example comes with “Silver Blaze,” where Doyle displays an ignorance of racing: those who knew “the sport of kings” pointed out that in real life, half of the folks involved in this adventure would be in prison and the other half would be warned off the turf for life.) He gives him a pass on these grounds:

   Doyle was a pioneer; and

   Holmes is mostly an attitude and a few dozen lines of unforgettable dialogue

   Batiuk is welcome to think he’s a pioneer (though Neil Gaiman should tell him his Will Ejsner story: Gaman was concerned about an innovative technique to be used in one of his stories, and thought it might not work. Eisner told hm not to worry, for he’d used something similar forty years earlier and it had turned out fine) but his dialogue certainly isn’t unforgettable.

   Nearly fifty years ago, Steve Gerber wrote a story for *Man-Thing* called “A Book Burns in Citrusville.” I think I need to reexamine it.

   For now, just bear in mind that whatever knows fear burns at the Man-Thing’s touch…

   1. Interesting!

   2. Anonymous Sparrow,
      For all of Sherlock’s crime solving, I know of no cases where he testified in court. Yet there are plenty of fictional court cases.
      1. I remember Hoss Cartwright being a lawyer on *Bonanza* one week. I think this might be the same episode where HopSing invents finger prints. I think Hop calls them ‘chops’.
      2. I always liked *12 Angry Men* with Henry Fonda. I read a revue that said if every improbable choice indicating the defendant innocence turned out to be true, the probability became more likely, he was guilty. But why ruin a good movie by overthinking it.
      3. *Witness for the Prosecution*. It has Marlene Dietrich. She has total sexual allure and yet remains German. My point weakens when I mention Lilo Pulver and Elle Sommer. So difficult almost impossible for German girls to have that rare quality of being pretty and functional. (Marlene must be related to our own
      Be Ware of Eve Hill!)
      4. *Anatomy of a Murder*. My all time favorite court movie. Jimmy Stewart goes nose to nose with George C Scott. (An aside for everything is connected to Sherlock Holmes: Scott stars as Holmes in *They Might Be Giants* with Joanne Woodward as his Watson.) AoaM is that perfect movie. Great script. Great characters. Great actors from top to bottom. Even has Joseph N Welch fresh from the McCarthy hearings as the sitting judge. (My favorite line: “I can digest pig iron.)
      It has been too long, my friend.

      1. SP:

         Oh, it’s good to hear from you again!

         Holmes may never appear in court, but he does set himself up as a judge and Dr. Watson as a jury in “The Adventure of the Abbey Grange.”

         I don’t know that episode of “Bonanza,” but I am very fond of “A Man to Admire,” in which Hoss is on trial for murder, and Whitney Parker, his attorney, is a newcomer from Illinois, where he worked with Abraham Lincoln. A more appropriate title would be “Men to Admire,” for as Parker admires Lincoln, so does Hoss admire Parker and a little boy named Benjie admires Hoss.

         James Gregory is Parker and considering his usual roles — Inspector Luger on “Barney Miller,” General Ursus in “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” and Senator Iselin in “The Manchurian Candidate” — it’s a pleasure to see him as an out-and-out good guy, who rewards Hoss’s faith…and is able to return to Illinois, where Mr. Lincoln has some cases waiting for him. (He gets to be a good guy again in “Nightfall,” a 1957 film noir, where he’s an insurance investigator closing in on Aldo Ray…and has his doubts about his guilt. Very rewarding picture, and a fine adaptation of David Goodis’s* novel.)

         Henry Fonda became a producer to see that “12 Angry Men” was made. He told director Sidney Lumet that it was magnificent, and I think he was right.

         Agatha Christie was delighted with the film version of “Witness for the Prosecution,” and when it was redone decades later for television, it retained Miss Plimsoll, who’s not in the play. (Elsa Lanchester worked with her husband Charles Laughton in “The Big Clock,” but they had no scenes together. The screenwriters created Miss Plimsoll to rectify that.)

         (Can BWOEH sing “The Boys in the Backroom,” do you think? Or “The Laziest Girl in Town”?)

         On Monday, I chatted with a lady named Melanie, who grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. That’s the setting for “Anatomy of a Murder,” and she was pleased, though not surprised, that I knew that.

         (Philip Caputo makes good use of that location in his novel *Indian Country.*)

         James Stewart signed to do “Anatomy of a Murder” when he thought that “North by Northwest” would never get out of development hell…not knowing that Alfred Hitchcock didn’t want him to do the movie (he felt that “Vertigo” had failed because Stewart hadn’t been right) and kept putting him off until he knew that he couldn’t do it, and that he’d have to go with Cary Grant instead.

         We’re fortunate to have both movies.

         The last movie I watched was “North to Alaska” on my computer. It doesn’t have a courtroom scene (though there’s much talk of going before the commissioner and swearing out complaints), but its star, John Wayne, gets to choose his own sentence in “3 Godfathers.”

         *

         Since Francois Truffaut came up elsewhere, I should mention that Goodis also wrote *Down There,* which provided the basis for “Shoot the Piano Player,” Truffaut’s second film,

         1. (Can BWOEH sing “The Boys in the Backroom,” do you think? Or “The Laziest Girl in Town”?)

            I’m not sure if you’d want to hear me sing. People have joked my voice is reminiscent of Kermit the Frog. I can’t carry a tune to save my life, and was a fifth grade band reject (clarinet). When I sing church hymns, I usually just open and close my mouth like a goldfish.

            1. We may rename you as”Guppy”

      2. So difficult almost impossible for German girls to have that rare quality of being pretty and functional. (Marlene must be related to our own Be Ware of Eve Hill!)

         Just throwing this out there. I do have some German blood. My birth father was born in Germany.

         1. We have always considered you pretty and functional! Don’t let us down.

            1. “Birth father”?

               Oh, right, “bio-dad.”

            2. @billthesplut

               Not funny and not appreciated.

5. This wonderful retelling stands in extreme contrast to today’s self-congratulatory shmuckery… though I like the background image where I imagine Pam is trying to figure out which of the Doublemint twins is Mindy.

   Big kudos to BJ3K!

6. One thing still unexplained, either by Batiuk or the testimony of Nate Green: What on earth is so objectionable about Fahrenheit 451?

   My theory: The literary estate of Ray Bradbury got wind of Les Moore’s plans. After reviewing Lisa’s Story and Fallen Star, they quietly informed the school board that any attempt by Les to teach the material would result in lawsuits.

   FYI, I just learned that this FORBIDDEN, BANNED book that people risk their very lives to sell was adapted into an HBO film a few years ago. Of course, since the material is BANNED, the HBO offices were immediately raided, and all involved were arrested and are now awaiting trial.

   1. But it was explained! There are things in there that some people don’t want kids to see! And it sends the wrong message! How could you miss such an erudite explanation?

      Yeah, I’ll pretty much guarantee that’s as far as Batiuk is going to explain anything in this. And I’m sure he thinks he’s utterly brilliant for choosing the “they want to burn the book about burning the books” book, too. (But the relevant questions like “what don’t people want the kids to see” or “what message does it send, and why is it wrong” won’t ever get raised by anyone not in a comments section.)

      (And if we ever get to see any of Best Actress Academy Award Winner Les Moore’s classes discussing the book, he’ll find a way to completely mangle the message, even if Bradbury himself wasn’t consistent in what that message was. But Batiuk will still get it wrong.)

   2. Francois Truffaut made a version back in the 1960’s. But you know, back then, hippies, dope and weed, the Adam West Batman show–civilization was collapsing rapidly. Besides, Truffaut was French.

      1. It’s a flawed film, but it has its rewards, such as

         More attention given to Clarisse McClellan;

         The nod to Bradbury himself, as one of “the Living Books” is The Martian Chronicles; and

         A grandfather passing on Robert Louis Stevenson’s Weir of Hermiston to his grandson, which brings up the importance of the never-ending battle to protect books.

         You see, Stevenson never completed Weir of Hermiston, though what we have of it suggests that if he had, it might have been his masterpiece.

         Truffaut, by the way, is scientist Claude Lacombe in Steven Spielberg’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” Liking Woody Allen makes Cayla a keeper for Lisa’s Ghost…did Funky Winkerbean ever mention Spielberg?

   3. Even within Batiuk’s continuity, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that Nate personally doesn’t object to the book; rather, he just wants to keep the school board off his back.

      1. Right; the question is why the school board objects to it? My theory is as plausible as any, and certainly 1000% more plausible than anything Batiuk will come up with.

         Which is nothing.

         1. [o]’s Lena theory from the original list of suspects felt very plausible to me. Some Betty Bowers type got a bug up their butt about F451 because it depicts the burning of Bibles. That person badgered the school board into putting it on their naughty list. Which the school board agreed to, just to shut her up. The school board doesn’t care that much, and may not even know it’s being taught against their rule. It’s such a staple of high school literature that it probably wouldn’t attract any attention if not for the fires.

   4. There’s nothing overly objectionable about the book. In the Daily Cartoonist article, Batty says:

      Going back to that elementary school bookmobile, it’s where I first read Fahrenheit 451, and, when it came time to select a book for the banned books story arc, it was the obvious one that came to mind. The irony of banning a book that’s about a segment of society that’s burning books is almost too poetically perfect not to use.

      In the last panel of last Sunday’s Crankshaft, Lillian echos the thought that Batty thinks “the irony was poetic.” 🙄

7. The worst thing about Les as a teacher in reference to his students isn’t that he’s a condescending ass. It’s that he doesn’t actually teach them English Lit. In the extremely rare moments where Les is shown teaching, he’s not lecturing about literary issues. He’s merely describing the plot of whatever he’s assigned or he’s asking them about trivial details. He’s never discussing anything that an actual English Lit teacher would be discussing with his students.

   An actual English Lit teacher would ask his students about the significance of the green light on Daisy Buchanan’s dock in The Great Gatsby. If he’s teaching a little more entry-level class, he’d ask the kids to identify the literary device being used there. Les would ask his class what color the light was.

   1. And, don’t forget, make a horrendous, execrable “joke” or “pun” that Batiuk thinks displays his erudition. Like mentioning a scene in which a character drinks wine, and quipping, “That’s probably why they call it ‘The Grape Gatsby.'”

      1. And all of his students are amused by that stupid joke. Most of them are smiling, but there may be one or two covering their mouth as they giggle, or just flat out laughing.

         I mentioned before that I had a teacher who had that sort of sense of humor, making bad puns and wordplay all the time, which she knew was mostly groan-worthy than actually funny. Lots of students absolutely hated her, with some vandalizing her car and making threatening phone calls to her house, and it absolutely sprung from her sense of humor making them think she didn’t take them seriously. And she genuinely cared about her students!

         But Les is an annoying shithead to them in every single way possible and yet they still entertain his bullshit.

      2. It’s not just the high school kids. Even adults will smirk or laugh at things that just aren’t funny, because the designated “witty” character (usually Les) said it. Then they eyeroll at “dad jokes” that are honestly no worse than the jokes the story frames as knee-slappers.

         It feels like a corporate Christmas party, where everyone has to laugh at the big boss’ jokes no matter how shitty they are. Because he can fire your ass, and there’s no telling if an underwhelming response might offend him. I’ve heard of CEOs who will intentionally tell shitty jokes at company meetings just to identify the suck-ups.

         1. I’ve heard of CEOs who will intentionally tell shitty jokes at company meetings just to identify the suck-ups.

   2. In a copy of Hopalong Cassidy, James Gatz, one day to be Jay Gatsby, kept this regime plan:

      Rise from bed 6:00a.m.

      Dumbell exercise and wall-scaling 6:15⁠–⁠6:30“

      Study electricity, etc. 7:15⁠–⁠8:15″

      Work 8:30⁠–⁠4:30p.m.”

      Baseball and sports 4:30⁠–⁠5:00″

      “Practise elocution, poise and how to attain it 5:00⁠–⁠6:00″

      “Study needed inventions7:00⁠–⁠9:00“

      General Resolves

      • No wasting time at Shafters or [a name, indecipherable]
      • No more smokeing or chewing.
      • Bath every other day
      • Read one improving book or magazine per week
      • Save $5.00 [crossed out] $3.00 per week
      • Be better to parents

      (Tony Montoni, please note: *Hopalong Cassidy* doesn’t match the timeline of Gatsby’s life. In that sense, Tom Batiuk is truly Fitzgeraldian!)

      Does this mean that Les he taught History, he would ask his students when the War of 1812 began? Or how long the Seven Years’s War lasted? Or what color was George Washington’s white horse?

      Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter—tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further… And one fine morning—

      So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

      Specks on the telescope, Les Moore can’t climb a rope…

      1. I never quite got the import of those last lines until I listened to the audio version read by the legendary Alexander Scourby. He’s a magnificent narrator; it brought tears to my eyes which was embarrassing as I was on the L at the time.

      2. Les has in the past asked his students something to the effect of “who wrote Shakespeare’s Hamlet”, which he labeled as a “trick question”. (And his kids didn’t answer and Les was a massive smug dick about it) But much more often he’s shown he’s only interested on whether his students have picked up on trivial details of the books he’s assigned them.

         “What was the color of the light on Daisy Buchanan’s dock?”

         “How did Romeo and Juliet die?”

         “What is the opening line of Moby Dick?”

         “What did Popeye use to assault Temple Drake in Faulkner’s Sanctuary?”

         Yeah, not that last one, but there’s certainly a book he could have used that parents could object to, and it’s older and by a much more renowned author than Fahrenheit 451!

         But then, burning it doesn’t have such self-evident irony. Batiuk can’t hit people over the head with just anything when he’s delivering his obvious message. It always has to be a sledgehammer.

         BTW, I love how he had to have Lillian point out that irony. He couldn’t trust his readers to pick up on it themselves.

         1. in a class of average high schoolers, at least one would spot the obvious answer to the “who’s buried in Grant’s tomb” type questions. If only because some other teacher tried this lame trick on them before.

            But Les is framed as the only person smart enough to think up obvious tricks like this, while everyone else must be fooled or impressed by it. Can’t you just see Linda going “who is buried in Grant’s Tomb? I’ve got to use that on my math class!”

            1. If Les did ask “who’s buried in Grant’s Tomb?,” and a student replied: “Former President Grant and his wife Julia,” would he be impressed with the complete correct answer, or think that the student was being snide?

               Would he be apoplectic if a student noted that you could also call it a Geiger-Muller Ciounter?

         2. Charles:

            I’m glad you chose Sanctuary.

            William Faulkner didn’t think much of it — he essentially admitted that he wrote it to make money — and hoped that those who read it would look next to As I Lay Dying, of which he was proud.

            My mother is a fish, but Buddy is a dog, and a good dog, too!

   3. Along these lines, might I propose yet another potential suspect?

      SUSPECT: every other English teacher at Worstview High.

      PROSECUTION: in order to teach Fahrenheit 451, Les had to not teach another book that is part of the department’s curriculum. This creates a huge problem because the district requires all English students to take the same final exam. If they include the book Les skipped to teach F451, his students will suffer; if they leave it out, all their students will suffer. In the belief that if they prevent Les’s students from getting their copies of F451, he will have to teach the assigned book.

      DEFENSE: the other teachers know quite well that if Les’s students can’t get F451, he will not fill the time teaching the assigned book; he will simply babble about the injustice of being “banned.” Further, they don’t really give a rat’s patootie about Les’s students; he’s such a lousy teacher that it’s assumed all his students will be repeating the class with a competent teacher next year anyway.

      1. Damn I wish this platform allowed revisions. The last sentence in “PROSECUTION” should read, “In the belief that if they prevent Les’s students from getting their copies of F451, he will have to teach the assigned book, they torched the two stores where he was trying to distribute it.

         Management apologizes for any inconvenience.

         1. A thing that’s funny about this page is how we obsess over minor typos that no one really notices, while Tom writes his weird nonsense and then sits on it for a year, only to submit it unaltered anyway.

            “I may want to add to this,” says Tom as he gets up from the toilet. “I’ll flush this in 10 months.”

8. Today’s Funky Crankerbean

   Day Forty Seven of the Byrnings

   SINCE WHEN DID LILLIAN INSTALL SECURITY CAMERAS IN HER HOUSE

9. Banana Jr. 6000, YOU are a MADMAN! The way you re-told Batiuk’s dopey story, and you re-made the story? I wanna party with you. By all means, carry on, sir! Like Harriet said above, line, standing in it. Or on it, as people say around here.

   1. NYC standers ON line, represent!

      1. i’m flattered that a NYC-area line for my nonsense even exists.

         1. You already have a cult following in North/Central NJ. It’s a small cult, but nonetheless. We are proudly standing on line.

10. Anonymous Sparrow,
    1. The episode of Hoss acting as a defense attorney is season 10, episode 13. Dick Foran assists Hoss. I always liked him. He seemed to give his all, and made it look effortlessly. I enjoyed Foran in *Petrified Forest*. Big name cast. I think Leslie Howard steals the movie.
    2.. I would pay big money if Be Ware of Eve Hill would record a song for you and me. What would you suggest! Broadway? Theme from Titanic? Pop Songs? I think she could easily do Country Western.
    3. James Gregory plays a very bad man in John Wayne’s film *the Sons of Katie Elder*. Dennis Hopper plays his son. George Kennedy also plays a very bad man, named Curley. I saw that in the theater. My sister fell in love with Michael Anderson Jr.

    This is the best conclusion I can give. I believe it is from StarTrek II: You have been, and always shall be my friend.

    1. SP:

       Film Forum is having a George Stevens retrospective and try though I meant to, I couldn’t catch “The Talk of the Town.”

       So I watched it on the computer…and thought immediately of you when I found that the public defender Sam Yates was Edgar Buchanan. He’s a supporting player compared to Jean Arthur, Ronald Colman and Cary Grant, but while Colman and Grant have to learn the intricacies of the law, Buchanan projects the wisdom of a man who already knows them…and doesn’t rub the faces of others in his knowledge.

       Coming after his appearance in “Ride the High Country” (which I finally watched, and which I found to live up to my high — if not great — expectations), it was something like seeing William Demarest as one of Preston Sturges’s stock company and then knowing that the first association for him will be as “Uncle Charley” on “My Three Sons” for most, much as the first association for Buchanan will be as “Uncle Joe” (who never got a child named for him) on “Petticoat Junction” (middle name “Jo” with Kate’s kids and with his first grandniece).

       C’est la vie.

       Andrew Sarris felt that before “A Place in the Sun,” Stevens was “a minor director with major virtues” and that with “A Place in Sun,” he became “a major director with minor virtues.”

       Sounds something like Tom Batiuk…I’d hoped to point out that George Kennedy, who never played Crankshaft, acted for Stevens, but he doesn’t even have a brief appearance in “The Greatest Story Ever Told.”

       My favorite comment on the Spock/Kirk friendship comes from Edith Keeler: she sees Spock “at his side, as if you’ve always been there and always will.”

       Is Canadian-born William Shatner a fan of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers?

       I’m not sure, but I know that Sarris, the Big Bad in “Galaxy Quest,” got his name from the aforementioned Andrew.

11. Just curious, re: the last couple days of Krankheit:

    Does anyone recall any occasion when an angry mob of arson-committing protesters was confronted with counter-protesters, and that actually defused their anger, instead of escalating the situation?

    Based on its efficacy for Lil, it seems like a much more effective tactic than tear gas, riot police, siccing dogs, fire hoses, etc. Wonder why it hasn’t been tried in other violent protests?

    1. “No theory of mind” rears its head again. Batiuk never bothered giving his protestors a real motivation in the first place, so when Lillian shamed them, he couldn’t think of a reason for them to stay. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ All of his poor writing is built on more poor writing.

       He also didn’t realize “I have a video camera” isn’t much of a threat to an organized protest group that’s committing a misdemeanor at worst. Activists know how to deal with this kind of threat. They know what rights they have, and/or they choose to accept the risk inherent to civil disobedience.

       On a side note, Lillian probably should have kept her yap shut about having a camera. There’s no way this information didn’t get back to the firestarter, assuming they weren’t there to hear it themselves. This gives the firestarter a chance to evade arrest. Assuming, of course, that anyone ever reports any of this to the police.

       1. “Theory Of Mind” = “T.O.M.”

12. And for the record, I would totally watch the entire Funkyverse legacy cast put on trial, “Judgement at Nuremberg” style…

    1. i would love to photoshop that, but the catalog of Funkyverse characters gives you nothing to work with.

13. Today’s Funky Crankerbean

    Day Forty Eight of the Byrnings

    I’d say that it’s over by monday but you can never be sure

14. My lord, this has been the longest and most insufferable Chick Tract I’ve ever been subjected to.

    And at least Chick Tracts have original artwork and hilariously bonkers anti-papist conspiracy theories.

    

    1. Chick tracts tell a coherent (if bonkers) story that has a beginning, middle, and end. They take a stand and make their meaning clear. They even have character arcs.

       In other words, they scale artistic heights that TB can only dream of.

    2. I’m guessing that against all better judgment, this is going into another week, during which we will learn nothing about the arsons, the crowd’s individual identities, nor why creepy Les Moore still has a job at the high school in Cancerdeathville.

       1. We will learn one thing: Batiuk’s idea of good writing congealed sixty-five years ago while shoving cookies into his gob.

15. Today’s Funky Crankerbean

    Day Forty Nine of the Byrnings

    What’s the point of having a security camera if the byrners filmed it themselves? It’d be like Jack Doherty (fuck that guy, glad he’s banned from Kick) filming his guards beat up a innocent man all the while police record the thing

16. Lillian bragging that she burned Eugene’s letters in panel 2 today… rating: very menacing.

    So, um… TB knows that folks like these “book banners” don’t post videos of their protests online without context, right? They’re going to describe their actions as being in the right. Actually, the fact that they were met by Cap’n Pete and his counter-protestors would probably help them frame their protest positively. They’re not trying to convince people who disagree with them to switch sides, they’re trying to convince people who are presently indifferent to move their direction.

    That would be an interesting avenue for this story to explore, the counter-protest backfiring because it gave the book banners a chance to control the narrative. Also interesting would be Pam knowing of this book banner video because she’s a mole for the banners. So we know two things that won’t happen…

17. Today in “Komix Thoughts” are possibly the six most ominous words in the English language: “No posts this week. Busy writing.” More depressing than “For Sale. Baby shoes. Never worn.”

    1. “Big meal! So full. Zanzibar’s gone.”

       1. “The STINK! Must air Lisa’s room.”

          1. “The bus waits. Kids will die.”

             “While grandmothers run in their panties.”

             HAH! Slush from puddles on kids!

             Long line of cars! Just Ambulances.

             I am CRANKSHAFT! This…is life.

             After the Burnings: “Could’ve thought this one out better.”

18. Not much to say about these last few days, as the gentle “wind-down” begins; the security camera “twist” doesn’t feel like much, but certainly it’s typical of Funkyverse storytelling that this small crowd of late-owl protesters would slink off at the sight of a counterprotest. Quarter-inch from reality in action again, of course. And celebrating victory does feel like we could’ve cut one or both of the strips, it can’t not show an edge of self-congratulations. I guess we have some plot movement that could lead to a mildly interesting Sunday panel, depending on how these “book banners” frame their uploaders (what a name for them; the same kind of polite madness that brought the famous “no gay old time at our prom” protest sign.)

    Suppose if I want to be intellectual, other forums have mentioned the idea that these protestors being illogical and idiotic can be read as realism, as that’s just how certain groups are acting in reality. I’ve heard this elsewhere in other story discussions, where you criticize the antagonists as being dumb or advantaged in a stupid way and someone can retort “Well that’s how real life is! Idiots keep gaining power and its human nature that they get this far! Captain Planet villains ain’t as ludicrous as they used to be!” Even if there’s a point to be made there, I don’t think it’s that wrong to at least try to add some logic to them, or at least flesh them out? Hell, Davis isn’t even showing the faces of any of these people, these strawmen are such a generic mob they won’t even give them identity. It really is the boogeyman of the post office bomber all over again.

19. That was great, BJr6000. I look forward to the next edition of your retelling of The Burnings™.

    I’ll tell you right now, if your version ends with anything other than the execution of Best Actress Award Winner Les Moore, I’ll be bitterly disappointed.

Comments are closed.