The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History [Hardcover]

If you have any affection for The Simpsons, I can't recommend more highly John Ortved's oral history of the show, The Simpsons: An Uncensored Unauthorized History.

The book focuses on the creative process that led to the show's miraculous early run, and on the financial windfall that fell upon, and destroyed relationships among, the creators of the show.

Ortved does an effective job of weaving a compelling narrative drawn from previously-published and first-hand interviews. By and large, the narrative remains fixed on the now-legendary writing team (including someone named Conan O'Brien) that was the true heart of the show. You get a real sense of what it must have been like in the writers' room, where this collection of talent, protected from network interference by powerful producer James L. Brooks, was set free to create multi-leveled, satirical, anti-authoritarian, classic television.

I'll tell you what I learned from, or had confirmed by, Ortved's book:

1. Matt Groening's role on the series was quite different from what he, and Fox Television, would have you believe. The heart and soul of the show was, more accurately, its first showrunner, Sam Simon, and its most influential, long-time writer, George Meyer. Meyer's role, in particular, was made quite clear a number of years ago in a fascinating New Yorker profile, but it turns out that, if anything, the earlier magazine article may not have given Meyer his due.

2. Money ruins everything. OK, maybe not if you're the one getting the money. Then how about this - take a beautiful situation, throw a really big bag of money in the middle of the room, and watch everyone turn into animals.

3. The best creative work is made when creative people are left alone. It doesn't always lead to brilliance, but it's certainly more likely to occur. Everything that's best about The Simpsons - its unique voice, its literacy, its complete and utter disrespect for the institutions that we're told are the pillars of society - most times would have been diluted or killed in its sleep by network executives. It doesn't make execs evil; they're just after something - dependable, non-offensive, universally appealing - that's diametrically opposed to the elements that often lead to great art. Think about what's best in television - The Simpsons, The Wire, The Sopranos, Arrested Development, Mad Men, Curb Your Enthusiasm - all of it is unique, outside the box, fiercely idiosyncratic. It's a wonder stuff like this ever sees the light of day. (One of the parodoxes about The Simpsons is that a show this risky at its inception became a virtual money-printing machine.)

I also realized, as I blasted through this book, that one of the things I love most in anything creative is work that is so good that I cannot ever imagine being talented enough to produce it. I understand that some people embrace art that looks and sounds like something they could do - hip hop, punk, and other great art forms are built on the premise of erasing all lines between artist and audience. I get it. But there's just something about being astonished by the talent of others.

The best part of Ortved's book is that it dwells not on the resulting work (there are remarkably few recitations of the best moments on the show) but rather, on the astoundingly talented people who created the show.

The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History is written in "oral history" style -- the author obviously spent a great deal of time conducting interviews with those who would cooperate and compiling quotes from secondary sources from those who would not(which, as the author freely admits and the title suggests, is nearly everyone involved with The Simpsons.) The result is an interesting look at the forces behind one of the greatest television series of all time. I certainly appreciated the candid assessments of the show's driving forces -- Matt Groening is depicted as a talented guy who hit upon a great idea and has spent years taking personal and financial credit for the hard work of others. Jim Brooks is drawn as a selfish, egotistical, and sometimes spiteful person, but nevertheless someone with the industry power to put The Simpsons on the map. Sim Simon, Conan O'Brien, Richard Sakai -- all are put under the microscope as well.

My biggest problem with the book isn't the oral history -- the quotes are mostly juicy, and the chapters are well put-together, if a bit repetitive -- it's the shoddy writing style and quasi-"fanboy" prose that strings the oral history together. Some of the book is written in journalistic style, with sources to back up assertions. Other parts are written with the author's opinion expressed as fact -- which episodes are good, which are bad, when The Simpsons started its decline. By the same token, the prose is sometimes formal, sometimes informal. Some text almost reads like a post on a Simpsons message board, yet other text reads like a formal essay or magazine article. Examples of each style, pulled from the same section of the book: "episodes like this indicate apathy in The Simpsons' satire" versus "the episode was so lame." So lame? Really? My 9-year-old could have written that.

The book is also riddled with typos. Al Jean becomes Al Jeans. Richard Appel is Richard Apple sometimes. The grammar is often poor, which again made me feel like I was reading a comment on someone's blog. That would be fine for a blog post, but I also don't pay 27 bucks to read message board comments. After a while, I started skipping the author commentary and just reading the quotes.

I hope that the second edition gets another review by the editors.

The way Ortved has tied together quotes from people formerly part of The Simpsons' inner circle (as well as quotes found in various places by those still working on the show) is very interesting, making the book hard to put down. It's almost like being at a friend's house while her family is arguing-- you know it's none of your business, you don't want this discussion to taint your view of certain members of the family, but for some reason you just can't tune them out. This book is NOT for regular Simpsons fans; it's really for the gossip-loving, People magazine set. It's for people who want to know what was going on with Fox in the late eighties and nineties. And this book definitely should only be read by critical thinkers: it is biased. Big time.

Ortved (and/or his editors) make some pretty glaring mistakes: names of characters are wrong (not just spelling, as in the case of Karl, voiced by Harvey Fierstein in the episode "Simpson and Delilah") but Waylon Smithers is called "Wayland." He doesn't know his Patty from his Selma, and at one point a hilarious spellcheck error occurs where "parody" is the intended word but "parity" is the word used. (I plan to show this one to my students as another reason why they shouldn't place all their trust in spellcheck.) With all these errors, it's hard to trust the author. These mistakes have damaged his credibility, making the fact that there is no context for most of his quotes even harder to take and specious. He places quotes (with no questions and usually no dates attached) in a particular order and manner as if to create conflict and argument between "speakers" when such differing of opinion may or may not exist. For all the reader knows, the words could have been uttered by the speakers ten minutes or ten years apart. For all the reader knows, the quotes were unsolicited rants or grudging responses to leading questions. There is no way to know.

Perhaps most striking about the subjectivity in this book is the degree to which the author overtly dislikes Matt Groening. (As a reader who's never met the author, I should have no idea who at the show he likes and who he doesn't, but I do). Early in the book, Ortved includes quotes by people who have negative things to say about Groening and others who've worked on the show, which in itself is not problematic. It's the continued snide remarks Ortved makes throughout the book that show his personal opinion about Groening that contribute to the damage to his credibility. I also take issue with Ortved talking about the "golden age" of The Simpsons (the seasons they were at their prime) as if it's fact that there actually was one. In fact, he never actually defines "the golden age" for his readers, and frankly, every Simpsons fan I know will tell you different seasons, episodes, maybe even writers, directors, and showrunners (depending on their level of fandom) that were "the best" in their view. It seems Ortved is a self-ordained expert on which writers, showrunners, etc. are/were the best, which isn't fair or right. Friends arguing between themselves about any TV show (or any other work of art) don't allow that kind of "take my word on it" mentality-- if a friend tells me he or she likes certain seasons better than others, they better give their criteria. If I insist on logical, definable criteria from my friends, you better believe I demand them from journalists. And any good journalist should know better than to try to get away with that kind of sloppy subjectivity.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 24 reviews  3.1 out of 5 stars