Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Books Media Book Reviews

Economy of Errors 110

Posted by timothy
from the exorcize-for-the-reader dept.
Andrew Marlatt, the mind behind the insidious, sarcastic SatireWire, has finally gone Onion. Fans of that fine news source, in fact, are probably the first ones who should check out this new compendium -- 183 magazine-size pages -- of SatireWire stories. SatireWire is a deadpan Fortune/Forbes/CIO Magazine (with a touch of Adbusters) to the Onion's USAToday/Newsweek/Times. The book is called Economy of Errors, and puts a virtual bathroom library of stories from BusinessMonth Weekly (published semiannually every day) into one volume. (Read on for the rest of my review.)
Economy of Errors: SatireWire Gives Business The Business
author Andrew Marlatt
pages 183
publisher Broadway Books
rating 7.83
reviewer timothy
ISBN 0767908872
summary Satire for anyone whose paycheck ends in "dot.com"
First, I grinned. The pin-headed suit pictured on the cover of Economy of Error (against a backdrop of sensible, neutral mottled gray) would have been right at home on the cover of a conventional business magazine, and with a different headline would probably even have made perfect sense -- this sense of ritualized news interchangeability is the same one that The Daily Show has been successfully mocking for years. Marlatt has a keen sense of the business-cheerleader media culture's inertia-driven , obsessively imitative tone and style, and apes both well throughout the book in a patois familiar to anyone reduced to buying magazines in airport news-stands

While parody sites draw their subject matter from whatever their creators find worthy of skewering, the most famous obvious comparison (The Onion) is basically a general news source, for a certain value of "news." The stories in Economy of Errors are (you guessed it) more about the Nu-Economy, and swipes at the buzzword laden, sense-deprived world of corporate idiocy and technological myopia -- the world of new startups, old-line companies pretending to be startups, last-year's startups pretending to be old-line companies and so on, not to mention dangerous "Click Houses" cropping up in the suburbs.

After I grinned, I started chuckling, then really laughing. "CDNow Wins Patent for Loss-Based Revenue Model." "Manufacturers' Lobby Says Small Children Defective.""Yahoo! beats Analysts' Estimates, Dogs."

I particular enjoyed the piece titled "Judge Denies Bias Against 'Guilty Microsoft Bastards,'" which quotes Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson explaining that his rulings in the Microsoft trial over which he presided were fair, and that he was never biased against "those guilty, lying bastards." Or, pick your poison, "Microsoft Says Linux Has No Future, So Linux Firms Will Stop." Say, these headlines are probably good for another 3 to 5 years at least!

Without giving away too much, I think you can safely read these headlines, too:

  • "House Sends Spam Bill to Senate; Senate Spam Filter Deletes It"
  • "Shooting at Virtual Office Leaves 3 as Good as Dead, 6 Tantamount to Wounded"
  • "Cubists Launch Unnavigable Web Site"

And of course, you can read these pieces on the SatireWire site as well, if you'd like too much to be given away anyhow.

Besides the stories (of which the full pagers ike "New HP Chief Can do Straddle Jump," seem to me much funnier than the shorter disinfo-blurb scattered throughout), there are a hefty selection of ads, most of which stick close enough to seeming real that I'd love to see a few scattered into a real business publication, just to see how many people notice. The spread on pages 88-89 of ads for various online trading companies certainly makes me laugh, or at least makes my face settle into a disturbing rictus. ("Thanks to Ameritrade, I quit my job as a bartender and bought that French villa I always wanted.") Maybe this is because I'm in that select group of people with a few handfuls of options on stock that costs far less than my special discounted strike price.

There are a few flat spots. For one thing, some of the parody ads no longer seem like parody, though this is hardly Marlatt's fault. (One ad shows the standard grey wash of newspaper stock listings, with enough stocks bolded to outline the familiar Absolut bottle shape, and says that the reason stocks will never fall is "Absolut Denial." Suddenly, too late -- it's like a mock gravestone for a living person, when the target suddenly drops dead.)

The same is true of two stories about the crisis that went away quietly, the Y2K bug. I wished as I was reading "Y2K survivors Devolve Ahead of Schedule" (about pre-survivors who started watching cannibalism tapes early) that each story was marked with a "first run on" date to establish more context. The undated story about the trend started by Microsoft Bob could use some context too, for when our children one day ask us seriously "What was Microsoft Bob?"

A few of the stories and ads in the book just didn't make me laugh, and small number didn't even stir a chuckle. Things like the full-pager for FamilyFetch.com ("Rent a life. Virtual Family in under an hour. Guaranteed.") seemed to take up valuable reading space, but didn't turn me on. YMMV.

On the other hand, both in the book and on the site, Marlatt makes a few forays into irreverent cultural and religious humor which may infuriate the culturally sensitive and leave those who would like to be culturally sensitive scratching their heads, not sure if they're allowed to laugh or not. I found myself in that second boat, but mostly laughed anyhow. Does anyone take real offense at a story suggesting that "Judiasm may be Y2K solution" because of the offset in years of the Jewish calendar versus the western one?

An impossible request for Marlatt when the next compilation comes out (as I'm sure it will) -- please include an index! Trying to look for an example of possibly offensive story, it would have been much faster to look for the word "Hinjew" in an index, but I think that story was too late to make the book, and is instead only on the site.

Now, I admit it -- I usually can't stand humor sites, because when they're not funny (to humor-impaired me), they're really not funny. There's no accounting for taste, which goes double for humor. This book, though, has spurred me to finally bookmark SatireWire and forced me to hand the book over temporarily to friends and family members prompted by my maniacal laughter to ask what I was reading. I look forward to the next round.


You can purchase Economy of Errors from bn.com, or from the SatireWire site. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Economy of Errors

Comments Filter:
  • Now, I admit it -- I usually can't stand humor sites, because when they're not funny (to humor-impaired me), they're really not funny. There's no accounting for taste, which goes double for humor. This book, though, has spurred me to finally bookmark SatireWire and forced me to hand the book over temporarily to friends and family members prompted by my maniacal laughter to ask what I was reading. I look forward to the next round.

    So why did he post about this site?

    It's really not that funny.

    But then again, I like Something Awful [somethingawful.com], Dilbert [dilbert.com], and whatever the 'link of the day' happens to be.
    • So why did he post about this site?

      $ Slashdot gets paid to run these 'stories'. How else do you think this site stays up? By subscriptions? Ha!

      • by timothy (36799)
        Hmm, there are two things wrong here :)

        1) I pointed out that I don't *generally* find humor sites funny, but that this book was an exception, and it's actually made me appreciate better the website from which it sprang.

        2) Paid to run reviews? Wow! I had no idea. I wonder if Andrew Marlatt pays me directly, or if I have to go through the publisher, Broadway Books? Or will Hemos send me a special check marked "book payola?" I'm really glad to know about this, because I could use an oil change, not to mention a newer laptop. Do you have any idea how much I might be paid? Please answer soon, because it will affect what I tell my broker later this week.

        timothy
    • The Brunching Shuttlecocks [brunching.com] have made the some of the worst humor-quadriplegics laugh.

      • Carl Sagan screwed this one up. Absence of evidence is the ONLY kind of evidence of absence you can ever hope to find. Granted it's not conclusive, but if went through life with the mentality that you must have things disproven before you let go the hope that they exist, then you will end up believing in anything and everything ever proposed to you.
        • Perhaps the quote should read "absence of evidence is not proof of absence," but then it would not be as witty. Anyway, the idea is that without evidence, and barring any rational counterarguments, there is no logical reason to believe something does not exist. Basically, absence of evidence does not affect the conclusion one way or another unless it is the result of a sufficiently large representative empirical observation of the situation. If, however, there is a rational (as opposed to empirical, which loosely corresponds to 'evidence' in this context) reason to believe that something exists, such as intelligent extraterrestrial life (to which this quote obviously alludes) then the absence of any evidence as yet does not make the pursuit of such evidence any less worthwhile. FWIW.

          • Perhaps the quote should read "absence of evidence is not proof of absence,"

            Yes. That would be much better in that it is actually true, unlike the original quotation.

            ..there is no logical reason to believe something does not exist. /em>

            There is no logical reason to call the stance "I don't think it exists" a belief. It's the default working hypothesis in any question of whether or not something exists, because it is the only situation that is absoltely guaranteed to lead to an utter lack of evidence. There may be other situations that can also lead to a lack of evidence, but "doesn't exist" is the only one that is guaranteed to. Therefore if you start from *any* other stance at all, even one of "maybe", it is completely impossible to ever be swayed from that stance by the facts, even if you are wrong.

            Even if other intelligent life doesn't actually exist, those who are looking for it will *never* be able to know that. It's a belief that once adopted, can never go away because it is impervious to assult by real world evidence. It is far better to say, "I don't believe it exists yet" while scanning the skies than to say, "I think it has a good chance of existing" or "It might exist", or "I hold out hope that it exists". It's that sort of nonsense that starts religions.

            • It's that sort of nonsense that starts religions.

              Yes, yes it is. But isn't it also that same sort of nonsense that leads to almost every discovery or innovation? I suppose it's a morale thing; to hope is human, to make hypotheses beyond the assumption of non-existence or impossibility is in our nature. It's what drives us to succeed in the pursuit. Inefficient as such a system may be, we're bound by our own shortcomings, not least of which is a relatively short lifespan during which I'd rather at least hope that what I'm working toward will come to fruition. But then, I suppose I can only speak for myself.

  • by kafka93 (243640) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @11:27AM (#3986454)
    I find it disappointing that a satirical publication should feel the need to identify itself so obviously as such. The Onion is the masterpiece that it is because it's so clever, so subtle, so 'could be true'. SatireWire may be all of these things, but the name 'gives it away' - by clearly saying "It's a joke! Funny!", the joke's impact is lessened.

    I'm not trying to be picky; it's just something of a bete noir of mine. I use The Onion as a perfect example to fellow Englishmen who claim that America doesn't understand irony, that American humo[u]r isn't funny. The Onion -- as all satire -- succeeds because it doesn't doubt the capacity of its audience to understand the humour. On this issue, SatireWire loses many points.
    • Actually, I've seen a couple of the SatireWire stories appear in the National Post here in Canada. They really succeed quite well in this format! The National Post is one of Canada's two main national daily's, but it is written with more of the style and humour of a British broadsheet paper. Perhaps this is down to the Telegraph tie-in via Conrad Black.

      The SatireWire web site might not be subtle like all good satire, but it's stories are good, and this especially obvious when taken out of context. The context of the story doesn't have to be subtle: take for example classic programmes I used to watch on British TV such as Drop the Dead Donkey - I know the programme is satirical, but that doesn't make is less amusing.

      Finally, don't forget we're talking about the USA. Mr. Bean isn't considered simplistic and childish humour by most people. This is the country where popular satire has to be presented as a cartoon (The Simpsons) before it will have mass acceptance. The British/Australian/even Canadian/etc sense of humour normally produces blank stares from Americans who just don't think the same way. Humour has to be like all other things American to be accepted en masse: unsubtle.
      • use The Onion as a perfect example to fellow Englishmen who claim that America doesn't understand irony, that American humo[u]r isn't funny

        Blackadder:Baldrick, do you know what irony is?

        Baldrick: Yeah. It's like...goldy, and bronzy...it's just made of iron.

        I agree. I hate the body of american humor. Seinfeld wasn't bad and News Radio was fantastic, but most of it I can't stand. Give me Blackadder or the young ones any old day.

        That being said...I hate bean with a passion. It's self-indulgent and yes, childish. I find it just as bad as most american popular humor, possibly a shade worse. Woody Allen once said that the thing that makes humor funny is the inherent truth to it. Humor is realising what's wrong with the world and ribbing on it to call attention to it and to lighten the burden. You should listen to some of his old stand-up routines. He, Mort Sahl and Chris Rock took social commentary to new levels. Just a suggestion, YMMV.

        Triv
        • I fyou liked News Radio, I suggest you check out Scrubs. It's in it's second season this fall. I think you can catch reruns during the summer on Tuesday or Thursday nights. It's the only show I watch any more besides The Mole.

        • You know, this may come as a shock, but Woody Allen isn't funny.

          So, his statement on "What makes things funny." is probably very, very, wrong.
          • I'm talking specifically about his standup here, the stuff he did in Greenwich village in the mid-sixties when New York was segregated - there were places you couldn't go (Like the New York Athletic Club) if you were Jewish. Very few people have heard this stuff, but it's where most of his more famous quotes come from: "Sex is a beautiful thing between two people. Between five, it's fantastic." etc.

            Woody Allen's not funny now, no (although I like some of his movies. Not most.) I agree with that. His straight comedy, on the other hand, was groundbreaking.

            Triv
        • While I don't find Woody Allen funny, apparently you do, which makes me wonder why you think American humor isn't funny. Last time I checked Woody Allen is American.

          The Simpsons. Dilbert. The Onion. - we Americans "get" satire just fine.

      • Ugh: posted before I was ready:

        You claim that the name SatireWire gives it away. What does the name "The Onion" do? It certainly doesn't conjure up images of being a normal source for news. It too immediately alerts me to the fact that there is something odd going on. Sorry, but your argument on this point doesn't cut it.
    • Englishmen who claim that America doesn't understand irony

      Brits think America doesn't understand irony? I understand irony perfectly. As a matter of fact, I iron my pants every day.
    • I`m possibly one of those "fellow Englishmen who claim that America doesn't understand irony" that you`re talking about, but a lot of us do not fit into the second category, those who believe that "American humo[u]r isn't funny". American humour at its best is far superior to that of the UK, especially when it comes to films and sit coms (if not books). But I`ve lost count of the number of times i`ve seen `is this a joke` when clearly it is, and i`m not going to suggest its because they are stupid.
      I like the Onion, and have the first book, but after a while you can just read the headline and extrapolate the text of the article itself - theres a bit of a formula going on there.
      • American humour at its best is far superior to that of the UK, especially when it comes to films and sit com

        I am not from the US or the UK, so lack the usual bias in interpreting these statements, but what you have just said amazes me. American humour in films and sitcoms is the worst form of trash ever, with a few notable exceptions.
    • The Onion is the masterpiece that it is because it's so clever, so subtle, so 'could be true'.

      You mean, its not true? http://slashdot.org/articles/02/06/07/1829212.shtm l [slashdot.org]
    • SatireWire may be all of these things, but the name 'gives it away' - by clearly saying "It's a joke! Funny!", the joke's impact is lessened.


      I agree totally. It should BusinessNewsToday.com, or anything that might fool the Chinese press into running a story [slashdot.org].
    • I don't know, I think it's entirely likely that people will read the satirewire and not know that's exactly what it is.

      Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity. If 1 person is smart, 10 are slow, and 100 are stupid, then all of mankind must be retarded.
    • > SatireWire may be all of these things, but the name 'gives it away' - by clearly saying "It's a joke! Funny!", the joke's impact is lessened. - kafka93

      SatireWire was originally named FNWire, but had to change because people kept thinking the articles were real.

      It still happens tho, see Americans annoyed by "all this international shit" on Internet [satirewire.com]: "Editor's Note: It seems that after reading this entirely fictional story, some investors/customers of Net Nanny believed the company actually was going to produce NetNarrow software. As a result, Net Nanny asked SatireWire to please assure people that this is not the case. No, really."

      • Considering all the products that were announced during the net boom, I'm not suprised some people took this seriously. The proliferation of Truth-Is-Stranger-Than-Fiction-type news stories also has had a profound affect on people's ability to judge the accuracy of these things.
  • Plagarism (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tuxedo-steve (33545) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @11:32AM (#3986489)
    Something that has been irritating me no end of late is the frequency with which articles on Satirewire are copied verbatim and passed off as original work. This doesn't just happen on the 'net. The student magazine of my university (which will remain nameless) has on a number of occasions published Satirewire articles uncited and unacknowledged. I've emailed the editors to complain of this, without receiving so much as a reply (let alone a printed acknowledgement, god forbid).

    This, I suppose, is the risk of running a great site like Satirewire that produces high-quality, original, goddamned funny content - people read it, wish they could write something as good, then figure "what the hell" and just steal it. I guess Marlatt could take it as a compliment, but only insofar as you would take having your house robbed as a compliment.

    Pants-wettingly funny book, anyway. Get it.
    • It happens

      I contribute every so often to The Brains Trust [thebrainstrust.co.uk] we make little or no money but its fun.

      One of our most widly read articles was "Depressed Man diagnosed as british" [thebrainstrust.co.uk] published at the start of this year. Since then we've seen it as an email (Rebranded as "Depressed man diagnosed as Scottish") and on at least Three [thehummingbird.net] other [bluehaze.com.au] Sites [bigbadjon.co.za].

      Still, they say imitation is the etc etc etc
    • Check out the April 2001 (?) issue of Reader's Digest. A woman wrote in response to an article about J.K. Rolling. She quoted the Onion, saying that millions of children were being converted to witchcraft because of the Harry Potter books, and that the children's books should be banned. Reader's Digest let her in on the fact that the Onion was satirical. (Reminds me of the Onion headline, "Funt lets Kennedy in on hilarious 'Cuban Missile Crisis' gag")
  • Fortune? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by transient (232842) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @11:34AM (#3986503)
    SatireWire is a deadpan Fortune/Forbes/CIO Magazine (with a touch of Adbusters)

    are you sure about this? i was never under the impression that satirewire was this focused. consider these headlines:

    • POLICE MUST NOTIFY RESIDENTS WHEN CATHOLIC CHURCH MOVES INTO NEIGHBORHOOD
    • HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DEMAND WARS IN EASIER-TO-FIND COUNTRIES
    • AUSTRALIA GETS DRUNK, WAKES UP IN NORTH ATLANTIC
    maybe i'm being dense but i fail to see how any of these are related to fortune, forbes, cio, or adbusters.

    --
  • Once upon a time, about four years ago I found The Onion to be the height of humour. Unfortunately, it quickly got stale repeating the same three jokes over and over again.

    Then, during the dot com bubble and collapse, SatireWire was amazingly funny. Alas but it too has run out of jokes now that the "new economy" is in rigor mortis. I rarely even visit to skim through the headlines anymore.

    These days, I stick with SomethingAwful for my laughs.

    Can anyone else suggest any fresh new mock news sites that haven't used up all their jokes?

  • That's one of the '25 things you must do to succeed in business,' which is one of the stories in this, I have to say it, classically funny book. I have yet to find a page that hasn't made me laugh. Every story? No. But 98 percent of them? Yes. And there are hundreds that take you through the whole New Economy, from the early 90's through now. Too many favorites to mention, but here's two: Based on a true story, the 'Postcards from the Ex' are postcards from companies like Citigroup and Procter & Gamble who write to ex-employees who left for dotcoms. Here's one: 'Jonathan, 'We've done a lot of thinking since you walked out the door to join online retailer Cyberian Outpost, and you know, you were right. We really are all about making money. We envy your freedom. Sincerely, Citigroup' And there's a great one about Cisco that starts: 'The rumors about Cisco Systems have been circulating for months, but the earnings warning and plunge in its share price have left little doubt in investors' minds that Cisco is not just a famous stock, but may in fact have been operating as a large company that makes complex and incomprehensible equipment related to technology.' Yes indeed, this book is great great great.

    -dk
  • Satirewire is just not funny. The jokes are obvious and forced, and about subjects which are tired and no longer funny. Sometimes there's something amusing, but the rest is just unoriginal and unfunny.

    TheOnion, on the other hand, is consistently great.
    • The Onion used to be funny, until one realizes it's become just a "Mad Libs" kinda story generating machine. These days, my remaining Onion kicks come from the H-Dawg Kornfeld, stoner dude, and Fashion Bug Plus characters, and occasionally an absurd outburst from a WDYT panel.
  • from the headline: "published semiannually every day"

    what exactly does that mean?
  • SatireWire (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jodrell (191685) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @11:50AM (#3986630) Homepage
    I've been reading SatireWire for a couple of years now, and this [satirewire.com] remains one of the funniest graphics I've seen on the net. Sometimes the humour can vary a bit but occasionally it's spot on. I'm slightly disappointed that the book seems to be a collection of old stories from the site, I was looking forward to something new.

    I'm not planning on cancelling my order though :-)
  • THe Onion and SatireWire are good. I like them both a great deal but I think the funniest site out there has to be Seanbaby. The stories on "The Probe" are hilarious and his Super Friends page is some seriously funny shit.

    Obviously where humor is concerned it's all subjective.

    http://www.seanbaby.com for the 4 people out there who haven't actually seen the site.
    • Wow, that's the second time you've plugged this site in this thread. Are you an employee?
      • Thought about it after the earlier reply and decided to do it again. The thing about it is that IMO the guy can actually write. It's crude and it's juvenile but it's funny material.

        Like I said, obviously that's open to interpretation. I'm still trying to figure out what movie the people plugging the new Austin Powers movie on IMDB saw. The one I watched was pretty bad and only had a couple of scenes that worked.
    • His writing is okay, but being a sarcastic glib critic who needn't deal with the devil in the details of his sweeping opinions, it's much easier to do his thing than to do the onion thing.
      • Re:Seanbaby.com (Score:2, Interesting)

        by JudgeFurious (455868)
        Like I said it's a matter of opinion.

        I too often find myself in awe of the way the writers over at The Onion handle the many details involved in writing such stories as "80s Retro Craze Sweeps Executive Branch" and "Canadian Girlfriend Unsubstantiated".

        How do you deal with something like that? How do you ingest the information necessary to write something as complicated and far reaching as that? The ramifications of writing an article titled "Study Reveals: Babies are Stupid" are mind boggling to say the least. Clearly these kinds of stories should not be confused with the writings of a sarcastic glib critic. These stories clearly require the ability to "deal with the devil in the details".

        Or something like that.
        • Re:Seanbaby.com (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SirSlud (67381)
          Slow down, boy.

          Sean is not satire. He seems to write his opinions. He editorializes. In that respect, while his opinions and jokes can be funny, his targets tend to be somewhat obvious and easy to ridicule. Since he doesn't have to deal with the ramifications and implications of his opinions, he's pretty safe. Again, his writing can be very funny, but his opinions are the 'easy to make' flavour; mostly self-serving and generally glib. Y'know, spill a little blood, caveat emptor, that kind of take on the world. Make fun of those who've already lost. Whatever. I'm not arguing against his opinions - I'm only saying that its infinately easier to scrawl hilarious but ultimately substanceless diatribes than to parody something with a straight face and still get a point across. Sean can be funny, but he has a luxury of freedom with regard to the format of his site that The Onion and Satire Wire do not have.

          The Onion is satire. Their goal is to parody truths in life by writing satirical articles in an understated and dead-pan fashion. Their research and authenticity as it relates to the subculture they are parodying in any given article is second to none, in my opinion. (I find SatireWire has great concepts, or head-lines, but the writing itself is a little too self-aware and not always up to snuff with the tone you generally find in a newspaper .. which somewhat jarrs your mind out of the 'alternate universe' parody stories presumably take place in.) While The Onion's concepts are generally not as outright funny as Satire Wire's, nor potentially as laugh-out-loud funny as Sean, the actual quality of the writing and the authenticity of the tone found in The Onion is what will forever sell its parody to me.

          You disagree, but thats okay. No need to try and poke fun at me for dissecting these sites. I simply like to consider the 'difficulty level' of a comedic goal before I declare who's come closest to reaching it.
  • Marlatt makes a few forays into irreverent cultural and religious humor which may infuriate the culturally sensitive...

    I think that the religous and cultural humor is some of the best satirewire content. I generally think of myself as fairly sensitive to other people's beliefs and cultures, but I don't see a problem with these stories. I don't think they're derogatory. Now if there was an article about how stupid Jews are or how all those black people are drug dealing gangbangers, I'd definately have a problem with them. I am Catholic and I thought the story about having to notify the public when a priest moves in funny. I think you have to take religion as with any other aspect of life with a grain of salt. If you can't laugh at yourself you need to lighten up.

    I'm not saying that its ok to go attack people because of their beliefs. The line may be blurry to me but it is definately there, and I don't think these things have crossed it.

    "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh"

  • by Quinn (4474)
    I don't think this word means what you think it means.
  • I love the story they wrote announcing the book [satirewire.com]:

    At first we were like, 'A book? Gee, why don't we just go all the way and paint on some cave walls or something?'" recalled Marlatt of his earliest conversations with the publisher.

    However, Broadway's response convinced the author that he should reconsider.

    "They told me, 'Well then, you just go ahead and keep publishing on the Internet, for free, like an idiot,'" said Marlatt.

    Overall, it's a very funny book. My only complaint is that, clearly, they didn't have enough content, so they raised the font size to make everything fit. This is the opposite of any of The Onion books, which had to reduce the size to (near) unreadable levels in order to fit their tabloid-sized newspaper into a book format.

    --

  • Without any doubt, Satire is my favorite form of humour. As many of you here, I have been reading The Onion for years. I found SatireWire a while back, and have been enjoying it since. It isn't The Onion, but nothing is. It is quite funny in it's own right.

    Probably my favorite story has to be CANADIAN WARSHIP SEIZES TANKER IN... WAIT... CANADA HAS A WARSHIP? [satirewire.com] Granted, I am Canadian, but read it for a good lauhg, and for an example of the quality that comes out of SatireWire.

    • The U.N. said the incident is already under investigation, and promised swift action against those found responsible for giving the Canadians guns. Initial findings indicate that the Vancouver crew may have been watching too many American television shows.

      Yes, that's one of their best ones... I also liked the "Australia gets drunk" and "Hindus and Jews merge, form Hinjew religion" ones.
  • I'm not inclined to buy the book in any case - this is true of Dilbert, Userfriendly, The Onion or Satirewire.
    If the website cannot survive on ad revenues, then that's too bad. I occasionally click through ad banners on sites which I vist frequently. That ought to be enough.
    Oughten it?
  • The Onion is NOT a website. It is a newspaper. I don't know about you, but to read the Onion I go to the library on Wednesdays and pick up a copy. The website is secondary. (The books are tertiary, although 'Century' is genius.)

    Haha, those of you who don't live in Madison!
  • Speaking of really funny sites, I just found one that I find hilarious, it's a flash animation:

    www.jonathonrobinson.com/3.0/web/webtsos.html

    I must have watched it like 20 times by now...

"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]

Working...