26
Jul
10

DHS Editorial: Reply to Bill Oakley

Last Monday’s post about “Homer’s Enemy” attracted the notice of longtime Simpsons writer (Season 3 – Season 10) Bill Oakley, who sent us an e-mail.  That e-mail is reprinted here; our response is below.

“He’s right, you know.” – Moe
“About the ox?” – Principal Skinner
“About everything, damn it!” – Moe

First of all, thanks to Mr. Oakley for taking notice of us, and deeming us to have our heads far enough up our asses to deserve correction, but not so far as to make it unworthy of his time to offer that correction.  Furthermore, we hope he understands how much we and so many others appreciate all the work he did on The Simpsons.  It is a testament to the power of that work that we’re still talking about it all these years later.

To dispense with the smaller point first, Oakley is absolutely correct that Homer needed to be amped up a little from his usual self to provide a better contrast with the sober and staid Frank Grimes.  As he writes, having a character like Grimes cross paths with the Homer of “Lisa’s Pony” wouldn’t have worked.

He is further correct that we can’t reasonably hold the rest of the series against “Homer’s Enemy”.  Calling it a “turning point”, as the title of our post did, implies that this was somehow deliberate when, of course, the writers of “Homer’s Enemy” had no way to know that the show was going to go on for another three hundred episodes (so far), and that most of those episodes would feature Homer as an “Absurdly-Gluttonous World-Famous Idiot with No Recognizable Human Traits or Emotions”.  In the context of the show at the time, having Homer recite his accomplishments and produce his Grammy worked as “an intentional self-parody, a catalog of gleeful excesses past and present”.  It is only the subsequent descent of the series into unintentional self-parody that makes “Homer’s Enemy” seem like an early symptom of terrible things instead of the one-off it was intended to be.

We hope that Mr. Oakley can appreciate that from an audience point of view, privy only to the finished episodes and not the backstage goings on, “Homer’s Enemy” does seem to presage the decline of the show.  It is true that this episode did not seal the show’s fate, as it is true that the Homer of “Homer’s Enemy” is much more akin to Homer we love than the one we despise.  But for much of the wretched horde of remote wielding tube jockeys, letting Homer enjoy his life felt like opening a Pandora’s Box that had no hope at the bottom.

Sadly, those three hundred plus episodes after “Homer’s Enemy” must be acknowledged.  They happened; and they have cheapened The Simpsons.  Homer has become malicious, though not in “Homer’s Enemy”, nor even in much of Season 9.  While the writers of “Homer’s Enemy” – which is an excellent episode – are not to blame for the ongoing tragedy of later seasons, neither can we ignore this first gaze into the abyss.  The world is full of monstrous things that had grand and innocuous beginnings.  Had this one not escaped its cage, had the show wound to a conclusion a year or two later instead of staggering on like the undead, we would remember this as the aberration it was intended to be.


3 Responses to “DHS Editorial: Reply to Bill Oakley”


  1. 1 Derp
    26 July 2010 at 11:39 pm

    I said this in my comment on the original article:
    “I don’t believe the writers of season 9 and onwards simply started writing Homer based on this episode, but I do believe it changed their perspective on him.”

    Whether Homer was simply written as an idiot or was satirizing his less desirable qualities is quite unimportant. In fact, even if the writers suggested the latter is the case, I don’t believe it’s any more elegant than the former possibility.
    I’m not sure that a character being used as a parody of themselves is any better than them being written purely for comedy. Compare zombie Simpsons to the classic era and the characters do seem like satirical extremes of their earlier incarnations.
    Homer’s Enemy could be seen as a step towards the loss of their “human” characterization and encouraging more two-dimensional personalities. Saying Homer is “dumb” referring to seasons 1-9 is selling his character short; he’s not willingly neglectful and he wishes the best for his family and these factors contribute to character-driven plots. Conversely, saying zombie Homer is “dumb” is a fitting summation of a character that is twisted to fit into ridiculous situations.

    I still enjoy Homer’s Enemy and unlike modern idiot Homer, he’s not malicious and is quite lovable. Saying that it’s a “satirical take”, though, seems to glamorize it.

  2. 27 July 2010 at 6:30 pm

    I quoted the Oakley reply and your reply on the No Homer’s Club and here was a response:

    http://www.nohomers.net/showpost.php?p=2725434&postcount=222

    • 3 Charlie Sweatpants
      28 July 2010 at 4:12 pm

      Ha, thanks. I had no idea you’d been getting into it with that melvin guy about this episode since last year. And I completely agree with this:

      “And what’s starting to piss me off is since Homer’s been a braindead, cartoony jackass for so long, people think the first 8 seasons of Homer being depicted as I stated above is the fluke.”

      This part of the general damage Zombie Simpsons has done to the show, and I really hate that.


Comments are currently closed.

E-Mail

deadhomersociety (at) gmail

Run a Simpsons site or Twitter account? Let us know!

Twitter Updates

The Mob Has Spoken

Anonymous on Homeronymus Bosch
Ah Hee Hee Hee on Homeronymus Bosch
Anonymous on Homeronymus Bosch
Ezra Estephan on Homeronymus Bosch
Anonymous on Homeronymus Bosch
Anonymous on Homeronymus Bosch
Anonymous on Homeronymus Bosch
Anonymous on Homeronymus Bosch
Anonymous on Homeronymus Bosch
Anonymous on Homeronymus Bosch

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Reruns

Useful Legal Tidbit

Even though it’s obvious to anyone with a functional frontal lobe and a shred of morality, we feel the need to include this disclaimer. This website (which openly advocates for the cancellation of a beloved television series) is in no way, shape or form affiliated with the FOX Network, the News Corporation, subsidiaries thereof, or any of Rupert Murdoch’s wives or children. “The Simpsons” is (unfortunately) the intellectual property of FOX. We and our crack team of one (1) lawyer believe that everything on this site falls under the definition of Fair Use and is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. No revenue is generated from this endeavor; we’re here because we love “The Simpsons”. And besides, you can’t like, own a potato, man, it’s one of Mother Earth’s creatures.