The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History [Audiobook, CD, Unabridged] [Audio CD]

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.

I'm a bit surprised at all the harsh reviews for this book (reviews I largely consider to be overly critical and nit-picky), but I guess I shouldn't be. After all, there's a reason Comic Book Guy was created to lampoon "Simpsons" fans. But to be honest, this book is not without its flaws. I'll get them out of the way first:

1. Yes, there are a few factual mistakes that legions of nerds must have noticed.

2. Poor organization did indeed get on my nerves. I'm referring mostly to latter portions of the book, when Ortved apparently decided to shift from writing more or less in chronological order to organizing sections by topic. For example, why not incorporate the guest stars into the main body of the story?

3. Ortved has an inconsistent voice. He's an objective narrator for most of the book, letting the writers, producers, etc. give their oral history -- but then his paragraphs (in bold, so you know it's him) get bigger and bigger. He beats a dead horse about the lack of subtlety in recent seasons and the loss of overall quality of the show. (John, you're preaching to the choir!) He practically rants about Rupert Murdoch and Fox News. He talks about later "grown up" animated series, such as "South Park," and "Family Guy," but it's hard to tell if he's criticizing them for being "ungrateful children" (his words) or applauding their success.

But despite these three significant flaws, I really enjoyed this book. It offers a good look at the things that made the show great in the early years, and what has made it not so great in the many years to follow. We get to hear from writers (including Conan!), cast members, and guests directly, and producers who didn't want to be involved are still represented in their very own words through things they've said during interviews over the years.(Nit-picky mistakes aside, Ortved obviously did a lot of research.) The book also offers a nice reminder (or lesson, for younger readers) of just how big a deal "The Simpsons" was when it first aired -- from Bart Mania and Black Bart to the shock of the first gay prime time cartoon character to Bush Sr.'s proclaimed preference for the Waltons.

What's probably most enticing to "Simpsons" geeks such as yourself (and if you've read this far, it's likely that you fit the description) are the little factoids and anecdotes you'll learn from those involved. You'll learn from "The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History" that Matt Groening wasn't quite the driving creative force behind the show that he's been made out to be, that current producer Al Jean is smart enough to have received a degree from Harvard but stupid enough to think the 14th season was just as good as the 4th, that the creation of the Dr. Hibbert character was the result of our favorite family competing in the same time slot as Bill Cosby (you know, the other laughing black doctor who wore goofy sweaters), and that Nancy Cartwright is a big-time Scientologist.

Except I guess you won't really learn those things from the book because you just read them here.

(Annoyed grunt!)

Lee "Hell Hole" Fooks

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.