Good Night, Shyamalan
by George McCartney
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
A review of The Happening (produced and distributed by Twentieth Century-Fox and UTV Motion Pictures; written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan)
The star of M. Night Shyamalan’s latest film, The Happening, demonstrates once more how unaccountably loathe producers are to give their boom microphones top billing.
During the showing I attended last night, the boom mike kept playfully piercing the top edge of the screen. After ten minutes, I left the auditorium to talk to the theater manager. “We tried lowering the screen’s top mask line,” she explained, “but it cut off most of the actors’ heads.” I returned to my seat resigned to put up with this assault on my always willing suspension of disbelief. Still, I took heart, reasoning that the nuisance would surely disappear as the film went on. Directors constantly review their films as they shoot them to correct just such problems. But no. The microphone or, to be more accurate, microphones, kept bouncing into one scene after another. One was muffled in furry fabric for outdoor recording. Another had turned red perhaps from embarrassment. If the scene had dialog, a boom mike appeared. This would have been intolerable but for one thing. Mr. Bouncing Mike was giving the liveliest performance in the film. Indeed, I would later discover that BM had become a celebrity on the internet. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people were posting notices about its performance. One observer recorded that, in the theater he had attended, rowdy adolescents took to calling out, “Where’s the mike?” whenever it didn’t drop into a scene.
I don’t want to make this a star-is-born column. Suffice it to say that Shyamalan’s carelessness with his boom suggests he harbors a self-destructive arrogance as well-developed as that possessed by any other swell in his industry.
With all of Shyamalan’s films, one thing stands true: Each has been more disappointing than the one before. I reviewed The Sixth Sense nine years ago with great enthusiasm. It further confirmed my opinion that films are worth writing about, that at their best they can afford the kind of pleasure and provocation that other arts do, and I looked forward to seeing him fulfill his early promise. He never has. I did not write about his most recent works, The Village and The Lady in the Water, on principle. It’s unsporting to shoot caged foxes. So why am I taking aim at The Happening? I suppose out of an odd combination of wonder and regret. I cannot understand how so talented a young man can have persisted in such folly. And, unless by some marketing miracle or public craze The Happening makes money, Shyamalan will not likely be able to raise the capital to make another film.
From the first, Shyamalan has been enamored of the Big Idea, an infatuation fatal to narrative art. In The Happening, the Big Idea is that Mother Nature has become fed up with mankind—a notion that has some provenance, I believe. Anyway, the rhododendrons, aspidistras, and arborvitae have conspired to exhale toxins into the air that invade human neurotransmitters and block whatever it is that keeps us from sinking knitting needles into our necks or walking off girders 20 stories above Manhattan. You would be amazed at how the bodies pile up when this whatever-it-is is blocked. When grade-school science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) and his buddy, Julian (John Leguizamo), discover what’s happening on the streets outside their classrooms, they grab their families and head west, assuming Manhattan is under a terrorist attack. But everywhere they go, they come upon people killing themselves. At last, Elliot finds a farm owned by a paranoid recluse (a wonderfully over-the-top Betty Buckley). Having no other recourse, Elliot and his wife, Alma (Zooey Deschanel working her terrified baby blues overtime), hunker down, despite Ms. Buckley’s harangues on the poisoned state of modern America.
Nothing is wrong with this premise, but Shyamalan handles its elaboration with a laughable disregard for human plausibility and artistic finesse, especially with Mr. BM butting in every few minutes. While people all around them are cutting their throats and throwing themselves under tractors, Elliot and Alma keep arguing over whether they are really committed to each other. She feels compelled to tell him she went out for dessert with a coworker, and he confesses to making goo-goo eyes at a woman in the pharmacy. I half expected they would stop to confer with a marriage counselor on their mad dash just ahead of those bad-breath flowers across rural Pennsylvania.
Shyamalan cavalierly abandons his allegory whenever he feels it’s time to thump one of his thematic points. Here we are to understand that lack of commitment is toxic to marriages. OK, I’ll buy this, but jeepers, let’s first get out of the way of that ill wind blowing from the East!
Shyamalan, too, needs to step aside from the mighty draft of his hubris and decide whether he wants to tell stories or give sermons. They are not the same thing.
George McCartney is Chronicles’ film editor.
This article first appeared in the August 2008 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 15 August 2008:
You are more generous with Shyamalan than I would be. Even Sixth Sense, I thought, was terrible film. Shyamalan, at best, should be making used car commercials, not films.
2 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 15 August 2008:
Dénouement has never been a strong part of Shaymalan’s films. Even if he weren’t the writer (as he commonly is), then in the capacity of a director he would have guide his climax and resolution to more theatrically acceptable dénouement. My bad English notwithstanding, our well trained suspension of disbelief does not merit frivolous endings. I did have a flash-back of a Spanish soap (telenovela) after seeing some of his work where “Fernando learns in the closing scene that he is, his own mother”. Shaymalan usually operates outside of accepted theatrical principles.
Your remark [“Shyamalan, too, needs to step aside from the mighty draft of his hubris and decide whether he wants to tell stories or give sermons. They are not the same thing.”], is perfectly appropriate. The more one departs from the dramatic structure, that much more is the same person sentenced to narrative (sermon-like) sections. This element in, and of itself is a killjoy for anybody knowing what dramatic structure contains.
I have the dubious honor of being an AFI member since their inception (Gregory Peck was the President), and this year a friend has completed a Master’s class. They, too (the AFI) stress “the narrative”. To me, (with a more old-fashioned education more rooted in the Poetics, this is an equivalent of Indy500 with the handbrake on. I applaud your ability to sit through such films and keep your disbelief in suspension – I fail at that more often than I care to admit.
3 Comment by james on 15 August 2008:
US probably attacked Mother Nature first like the US/Georgian/Israelis bombardment attack on South Ossetia cause a defensive reaction from Russia.
I quite liked this film. The Sixth Sense was boring, the surprise ending you could see a mile away and Bruce Willis low speaking mumbling was just annoying.
4 Comment by Andy Nowicki on 15 August 2008:
For an alternative view of this film and its maker, both of whom have been much maligned of late:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/nowicki_shyamalan.htm
For an alternative view of THE VILLAGE, which I submit, contra this reviewer, is a terrific film with a daringly reactionary subtext that I think would delight most Chronicles readers:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/nowicki_village.htm
5 Comment by William Grigg on 15 August 2008:
I earnestly hope that Mr. Shyamalan brings his ego to heel before he destroys what was a very promising career. The much-discussed technical ineptitude of “The Happening” aside, he’s a gifted director who is very capable of eliciting good performances, creating well-realized characters, and producing textured, intriguing films.
It would be interesting to see how things would work out if he commissioned a suitable screenwriter — somebody whose accomplishments and creative stature were sufficient to command his respect — to work his next story into a screenplay.
The sub-plot involving Elliot and Alma’s marital turbulence may be annoying and badly handled, but this underscores one persistent theme in Shyamalan’s films, namely the efforts of a damaged family to repair itself, or transcend an irreparable loss. I remember being amazed by the end of “Unbreakable’s” second act when the couple central to the story, who appeared to be destined for divorce, decide to reconcile. With a stunned look I turned to my wife Korrin and said, “Okay, NOW I’m impressed.”
I don’t know why Shyamalan keeps returning to this theme and its variations. I suspect it indicates that beneath all of the arrogance and calculation might be found an artist with some genuinely worthwhile things to say. I sure hope he pulls his career out of its flat spin so that we have a chance to find out if that’s the case.
6 Comment by Philip Smith on 15 August 2008:
Given the dire state of current cinema, it might be a good idea to revisit older films now readily available on DVD. I have recently been working through Fred Zinnemann’s work with a nearly continual astonishment that the medium ever supported subtle entertainments geared to intelligent and intellectually curious adults.
7 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 15 August 2008:
Philip Smith: Great idea. I have yet to see any recent film that would surpass the greatness of older films like Grand Illusion, Children of Paradise, Dolce Vita, Forsyte Saga (1967 version), or Virgin Spring.
8 Comment by Philip Smith on 15 August 2008:
M. A. Roberts: Thanks for your comment. Although not the best of his films, Zinnemann’s “The Sundowners” surprised me in its complete lack of the sort of spectacular overseasoning and hype that now characterizes seemingly all films: it’s as if one were to encounter plain sustaining food after decades of eating at McDonald’s. In a related vein, “A Man for All Seasons” and “The Nun’s Story” depict religion and ethical struggles without the snide overlay of condescension that seems to have descended upon the public forum since the mid-1960s. And even a thriller such as “The Day of the Jackal” is handled with superb attentiveness to the intrinsic dynamism of its subject without the sort of overwrought effect-mongering of Shyamalan and his contemporary ilk.
It could certainly be argued that motion pictures began a wrong turn with Hitchcock and the medium was effectively killed by Spielberg and Lucas. Even vastly superior talents like Scorsese and Coppola are clearly baroque, if not rococo, and symptomatic of the interlaced decay of the medium and its audience.
9 Comment by james on 16 August 2008:
“knocked up” was one of the worst, most overated movies to date.
The characters were annoying, the story was dull and it wasn’t funny at all.
Other films that got good reviews that were terrible are:
Lost in Translation
Schindlers List (Some of the scenes are ludicrous like the camp guard sniper shooting Jewish inmates, based on a NOVEL).
Sum of All Fears (Nazis try to provoke war with US and Russia, Russia seen as evil brutes slaughtering civilians on mass in Chechnya using chemical weapons (never happened)).
I Am Legend (Hardly any story ¾ of the film is Will Smith walking around an abandoned New York City).
The new Star Wars Trilogy (Money making CGI piss).
Casino Royale (Worst Bond character and Bond film ever, franchise should have been killed long ago).
Any other film that has an egalitarian or stereotypical “white racism” theme to it.
10 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 16 August 2008:
It’s very easy to make a mistake along the lines of “I liked this film, or I didn’t like this film” – that is not the point here. This young director is not totally devoid of talent, but he manages to disregard some serious dramatic principles which in the least instance damage his finalized output in one form or another. If the lighting was bad – the film would still sustain itself on other merits, but there is a constant undertone that this young man can choose to rectify or ignore. I like Aston Martin vehicles but I’m not sure that I’d have much to eat if I spent that much on fuel.
Naturally no vehicle can run without some sort of fuel. Similarly no film, drama, comedy, tragedy, opera can function with a thourough disregard for dramtic priniciples. If we are looking for lots of fireworks we can watch the 4th of July from the top of the Empire State building or a good Barnum and Baily show – that is called spectacle (only one of many dramatic elements). James please don’t confuse apples and oranges. For a good hair and make-up achievements you don’t need a good film go to any nearest fashion show. A complete film (like Fred Zinneman’s many works – A man for all seasons; Julia; From here to Eternity; Oklahoma; especialy The Old Man and the Sea which was very very narrative – he surely pulled a great film work even out of non-dramatic sources).
11 Comment by Akira on 21 August 2008:
I went out of boredom, and with nothing else remotely interesting to choose from.
I was surprised.
I couldn’t decide if it was absurd or absurdist, a parody or worthy of parody.
“Shyamalan handles its elaboration with a laughable disregard for human plausibility and artistic finesse”
I did laugh.
The way everyone was so mannered and restrained and objective about death and destruction:
I don’t know what the intention was, but I found it weirdly fascinating.
Bizarre.
Anyway, I went back and watched Lady in the Water, that I’d HATED in the theater, and this time really enjoyed it. I just ignored to apparent sermonizing and enjoyed the absurdity, the film critics death, a lot of great scenes, the colours, the set.
I wouldn’t write Shyamalan off just yet.
12 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 25 August 2008:
Akira, I suggest you start with a simpler dramatic structure and watch:
1. Pinnochio – man’s desire to create a part of self for the future (simalar in theme to Dr. Faustus or Pygmalion – which you may know better under the name of My Fair Lady)
2. Cindarella – parental abuse, sibling rivalry, traps, lies, inductions dangerous (words of Richard III – but don’t gamble on Richard III – it might be too complex
3. Three little pigs – sibling rivalry, reversals, good vs. evil (good wins wearing white hats.
See Akira, that way you can develop a gradual appreciation for the most fundamental dramatic principles which are obvious even to a bunch of 3 year olds. How intersting would Cindarella be if she was found as a lady in water 5 minutes after she arrives at the ball?
I am sure I have clarified the most fundamental dramatic points of a decent structure – they have been with us since Aristotle’s times (as matter of fact he even outlined a whole body of work devoted to theater (among other topics) in his Poetics.
I am aware that I have given you some very simple (even insultingly simple) examples but you won’t find anything inaccurate nor incorrect, even the children’s fables are built on certain principles. Some people enjoy the movement of the clouds in the skies – to me that is not a particularly interesing “event”. Feel free to enjoy whatever you wish. Some extinct tribes were known to enjoy eating human beings – but I can’t exactly envision myself in that group either – so as to avoid redirecting this to be as in “de gustibus non est disputandum” – it has absolutely nothing to do with tastes.
13 Comment by Akira on 26 August 2008:
Iliya,
That’s fascinating.
Please supply with that blueprint for all dramatic works, so that the next time I write something, I can just fill in th pieces and follow all the rules, and thereby create an original work of art.
14 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 26 August 2008:
Akira,
I think it shows that I (perhaps) majored in drama and I am sorry if my vast knowledge belittles you – but you asked for it with your moronic – “I live in the middle of the Mojave desert – this was the only film in my town – so I chose to see it and enjoyed it”. As I have clarified it is not a matter of taste it is a matter of substance and if painfully lack the objectivity of a semi-educated viewer, stay away from giving your views or start giving your views on the Nickleodeon’s website – where your views are more likely to belong. Here is my email, I’ll give you the structure breakdown of any film or drama that was produced in the last 200 years + the ancient Greeks(exlcuding Terminators, Robocops, Rambos, Rocky and similar HE-MAN self-aggrandizing shows. My email is iliija@comcast.net. Feel free to ask to your heart’s content.
Chronicle magazine has held a fairly high degree of very well skilled professionals in many arts and sciencies – drama is obviously somewhat alien to you. Your text was written with good amount of spinelessness, “I did laugh, was it absurd or was it only abusrdist… etc.”
What difference does any of that make. Eating human eyballs might be very challenging on a film screen but it will never be in good taste, now will it ever be dramatic. It may not be pleasant showing your ignorance in such a detailed way – but you’d do well to watch out for what you DO NOT know. There is plenty that I DO NOT KNOW – and I’m not ashamed of it – since I don’t go around pontificating about Astronomy, biology, physics, nucelar propulsion and much more.
Friends?
15 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 26 August 2008:
You see Akira, if you think that this is about you – you’re way off the mark – it isn’t. You proved to be an absolute dilettante and your naïveté is your own shortfall so you don’t really need any additional “talking to”.
However, our entire country is being taken to an utter Chaos by the shortest route, if we allow mediocrities like you, to give us your uncouth views on drama.
Perhaps you are a world class bicyclist and have a true field in which you may command respect but to allow mediocrities to run out country (even give their 2 cents) is impermissible, pretty much because of Edmund Burke’s: “The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.” I have grown up in a country where exactly the mediocrities commanded the whole country and brought it to a brink of total destruction. No need for me to relive it here again. That’s why America has an advantage over the rest of the world. We have the brightest men in all fields (more or less).
This is far from an “elitist views’ which are equally unproductive, but let’s have some degree of competence instead of a chatterbox speech on any given topic – we can’t be all Einsteins. I even included my email address should you really want some well established pointers from the field of visual arts. Don’t take it personally – but we all saw that the world starts to fall apart when the reigns are in the hands of mediocrities – we should have stopped Hitler at Munich not wait for him to invade Poland. We should have shut down the Gong Show and Jerry Springer after the first airing not make excuses and introduce Wrestling.
Friends? Right?
16 Comment by Akira on 27 August 2008:
Iliya,
I hope you can get the help you need.
17 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 27 August 2008:
Akira,
Don’t tell me that you’re unhappy that your glib comments were quickly disrobed for being stupid, ill-informed, poorly thought out?
Next time stick to the topics where you actually know something.
You might consider being happy since you found out what you never knew before.
As in the wise remark of Thommas Alva Edison (after he failed in his first 300 attempts to light up his light bulb – he was asked “Aren’t you discouraged that you failed that many times?”
To which he answered: “I don’t look at it as a failure, I just learned 300 ways of how NOT to do it”.
See communicating with me you actually broadened your views, but this is a democratic country and there are no laws against being foolish, stupid, ill-educated, poortly worded or similar, so you got off scott-free, in addition to which you learned something about dramatic structure. Seems that your wouned pride may prevent you from watching Pinnochio and other simpler works that will help you make more refined comments about drama in the future – but that too is human nature (hubris). Good luck getting rid of it. If you had anything you were confused about you could have asked me directly – I left you my private email address – but no, you chose to get glib and cute (both far from smart or clever. That way you just get burried some more. As a true Roman Catholic – which I suspect you are (DOGMATIC).
Friends?
18 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 27 August 2008:
Akira,
Pay attention to the following (from the above):
You see Akira, if you think that this is about you – you’re way off the mark – it isn’t. You proved to be an absolute dilettante and your naïveté is your own shortfall so you don’t really need any additional “talking to”.
However, our entire country is being taken to an utter Chaos by the shortest route, if we allow mediocrities like you, to give us your uncouth views on drama.
The rule of mediocrities is highly undesirable and leads to an abysmal failure of any society’s main moral fiber – therefore harsheness percieved will weed-out non-hackers and allow for the rest of the advanced thinkers to prosper instead of being hindered by such as you. I’ll let you in on a little secret, nobody has survived a verbal duel with me. There is no such outcome as to favor you – so put your tail between your legs while you still have it and walk away into your oblivious semi-existance of mediocrities.
I bet you like apples?
How about them apples?
Friends?
19 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 27 August 2008:
What? Ne replies from the dogmatic ignoramus?
20 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 28 August 2008:
Enough about Georgia, Aristotle’s Poetics, Drama, Film, Culture, Ukraine, NATO’s confirmed failures and all else: Let’s talk about ME.
I have had (not many) several offers to teach (at decent schools), which I respectfully turned down. Some 3 decades ago my son was taught in a good NYC private school how Stalin and Hitler were allies – I filed complaints all the way to the State’s Board of Education and persisted in clarifying the vast difference between a mutual non-aggression agreement as opposed to jointly deploying troops and truly being an alliance. Those two years of my life soured my taste for ever teaching any subject anywhere.
To drive my point home with more temerity – I look at Joe Biden (a real sad excuse for any Foreign relations function – even if it were the Dept. of Agriculture on direct trade with Canada only, it would be over his head – Europe, Asia, Africa must be a nightmare of little states with too many consonants that nobody can remember. To see THAT – as our V.P. – gives me pause. I can only remember that communism was very good in rewarding mediocrities and any advancement which would have been a tad too sudden or put the elected ones to shame since the elected ones were the slowest learners – was strongly discouraged, and outright penalized.
Some comments that I read – mostly at the mainstream media, show absolute ignorance of the American public about the range of topics (dealing with overseas issues – and that’s the last place where the Gung-Ho policy will work, or anything that resembles Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly…” or any European version of the Monroe doctrine) which is by extension ignorance and unwillingness to worry about their own well being during the next 4 years. We have managed to paint ourselves in the corner as a nation of mediocrities (and I am being very generous there). It is commonly through the trying times (such as today) that mediocrities manage to get behind a steering wheel and lead us by the shortest route directly to CHAOS.
21 Comment by Andy Nowicki on 28 August 2008:
Iliya,
Judging from your comments on this thread, you are bitter, vindictive, and spiteful. You’ll make a worthy successor to Dr. Fleming when the grumpy old codger finally retires.
22 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 28 August 2008:
Did “intolerant of mediocrity” escape you?
I’ll be happy to learn that I had not been undully harsh, wrong or inaccurate?
What could possibly be wrong with the classics?
If we live in glass housed let us not throw stones (it wasn’t I who said it first).
If I were up to Dr. Flemming’s shoulder’s I’d be a very tall man, but trust me – I’m not.
It’s just that this little unworthy pawn provided me with fertile ground for decimation of mediocrities which we all favor for some (God only knows which) reason. My 4 years of classical studies (out the window), my 7 years on the stage among the world’s fiercest competition (Broadway – On and Off), 8 years of post graduate work, while some pawn spews smoke and mirrors here. I just didn’t want to allow it another breath.
Thank you for the compliement Andy – but I don’t think I am anywhere near there (not yet), I promise to keep working on it.
You might have noticed that I usually provide a fertile ground for spelling errors – “spell checking” remains alien to me. All my thoughts are a product of that moment’s inspiration therefore what I do say carries authenticity and zeal which is far outweighed by typos.
Thanks again.
23 Comment by Andy Nowicki on 28 August 2008:
I take it back; you actually seem a lot more likable than Fleming (which is like saying you’re a lot taller than the midget actor who plays “Mini-Me”), though equally as pompous.
I liked “The Happening” too, like Akira. (See above post #4) Not only did I like it, it’s one of my favorite movies of the year. Please feel free to lambast my aesthetic shortcomings as well, since I was never a Broadway actor.
24 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 29 August 2008:
Nowicki, if you were a gentleman you wouldn’t enter somebody else’s discussion. Thank you for flattering me by comparing me to Dr. Fleming whom I admire – and, yes I am a little taller (6′5″ right now – I don’t suppose my ego counts since it seems to displease you – which will give me many restless nights). Anyhow if you were half the man (which you probably are (pint sized) you would not enter a discussion in the first place, but once you did you would augument your epithets and provide either empirical or other substantive arguments for your views. This is not a county fair mud slinging competition – unless you alone count for both mud slingers. Very poor taste, pint size intellect and uncalled for inteference with absolutely no grounds, empirical or factual support. You’ll never know why dog meat is such a delicacy in both Koreas, I suppose but with this much between your ears you may get to eat your own foot as you just did. Anywho, thanks for comparing me with Dr. Fleming, my superiority can’t really be measured but I bow in respect to both Dr. Fleming and Dr. Trifkovic, while Clyde Wilson is another unsurpassable source on these pages as much as Scott Richert. Pedestrians like you may insert an ounce of your own confirmation of stupidity to your heart’s content – it’s a free country after all, and there is no law against mediocrities and fools (regretrully).
OOOOOOOOOOPS – another one bites a big whopper.
Have you anything of substance to say, or is it that you like a trashy film, and confirm your lack of substance?
25 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 29 August 2008:
Nowicki,
If there were one working brain cell between you, Akira and your pint-sized ilk, you would have plowed into my typos – there is plenty of errors to go through – BUT.
Lambasting you, on second thought is not such a bad idea except that it would give you undue importance – if you really want to hear what I have to say be a man (I dare you, I double dare you) and send me an email: iliija@comcast.net
On the other hand I am in the white pages, my phone number is not a secret, neither is my home address nor any part of my biography – if you had anything of substance you would have mentioned it but this is just being a pedestrian pint sized self-aggrandizing twerp who propriatized a public forum for his own indequacies – don’t worry, you’re not in bad company (Akira is there with you and many others, Pellumbi Velo comes to mind and a few others. What part of my explanation is unclear?
26 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 29 August 2008:
and your email address is?
27 Comment by Andy Nowicki on 29 August 2008:
I decline your offer for a private correspondence. I understand and sympathize with your desire to make some freinds in this cold, cruel world; however, berating others for their alleged ignorance and stupidity while boasting about all of your knowledge and accomplishments isn’t the best way to win people’s hearts. Just a word to the wise, as you no doubt are, at least by your own account.
As far as harping on spelling mistakes and grammatical errors as a means to establish some kind of moral superiority, I will leave that to the base and classless, like your hero Tom Fleming. The two of you deserve each other. Just in case you misunderstood, that’s not a compliment to either one of you.
28 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 29 August 2008:
Coward.
Neener, neener, neener.
You don’t decline, you don’t have the balls for it, you’d rather proprietize a public forum like this which meant for some other use, but your EGO would rather be seen here than one on one. Do me a favor and don’t do me any favors. My superiority is self evident – even a pedestrian like you grasped it.
I respectufully decline to win hearts of cowards or make friends among mice – I’d rather stick to the human race. Read “Of mice and men”, even you may get it. Your view of Dr. Fleming’s vast knowledge, pognant reviews, advanced knowlegde, his good Christian moral fiber are all a testament, as much as the basis for his incredible output and terrific achievments. Mice like you won’t grasp the half of it.
How proud do you feel now?
29 Comment by Andy Nowicki on 29 August 2008:
Not proud. Just sympathetic and concerned. I wish you well.
30 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 29 August 2008:
Nowicki:
You mean to say you had a quick change of your diapers? Or just a sudden bathroom urge? What is it that a common spinless coward does routinely?
a) Run away?
b) wet his undergarments?
c) pretends to “decline some more overt conversation”?
d) invokes some tribal rule from Mesopotamia?
It all boils down to the same outcome. Run for your life, you saw how little you can do and how big of a black eye you can get. It’s a matter of self-prservation, wasn’t it? At least you know how to save your hide after launching some needlessly pedestrian remarks? What a pitiful excuse for a human being.
Maybe it’s pretty normal that people of such attributes are evasive, scared, ambiguous and decline all direct contact. I’d say that’s about 99% of the spinlessness.