The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History by John Ortved

Apr 20, 2010

Sam rated it

I'm about 60 pages away from finishing this thing and I gotta' say that it's a MUST for SIMPSONS fans. You'll zip through it. And you might not believe how big of a DICK this thing paints Matt Groening.

Put together as an 'oral history,' it's simply a set of chronological interviews, but it's a great behind-the-scenes of the internal workings of this Mayflower of animation. From the get-go, Ortved tells us this is NOT a book about how to write comedy for television, simply a historica...more

like 3 likes

· see review

Jan 25, 2012

David rated it

I suppose that's a rounded-up four, especially since I'm grading on a curve, having bought the book at a Borders sale and then reading its less than spectacular reviews. There are major flaws, like how there's a chapter on Conan, who only worked on the show a few years after it started, but not on John Swartzwelder or George Meyer, who were there from the beginning and stayed for more than a decade. Granted, I know the obvious answers, that Conan's a celebrity and and that he agreed to talk to ...moreI suppose that's a rounded-up four, especially since I'm grading on a curve, having bought the book at a Borders sale and then reading its less than spectacular reviews. There are major flaws, like how there's a chapter on Conan, who only worked on the show a few years after it started, but not on John Swartzwelder or George Meyer, who were there from the beginning and stayed for more than a decade. Granted, I know the obvious answers, that Conan's a celebrity and and that he agreed to talk to Ortved while Swartzwelder and Meyer didn't, but that's not very satisfying. That brings us to problem number 2, already abundantly discussed, which is how few people Ortved could even get to interview. No Groening, no Brooks, none of the voice cast save for Hank Azaria. Who he gets are mainly writers, which is actually fine. The book is largely a writer's history of The Simpsons, which accounts for many of Ortved's biases (such as that Groening gets more credit than he deserves because he's not a writer, which is hardly a controversial stance, given that Groening himself has said as much). And, let's admit it, if you're reading a book about The Simpsons, you probably care most about the writers anyways. Not that I wouldn't have like more about, I don't know, Dan Castellaneta's methods or if him and Julie Kavner ever hang out or whatever, but tell me first and foremost about the guys that came up with stuff like this: http://tinyurl.com/5ff7bm. And all the stuff that makes in it from the writer's room is fascinating, and well-worth reading; I learned much more about the show's development from Mike Reiss to Al Jean than I did before, and it helps me to better understand how the show developed. Much of the other material is worthwhile too, especially the more scandalous stuff that maybe cost the book authorization. I'm thinking particularly of the story of James L. Brooks and Jerry Belson on page 134 that almost puts The Social Network to shame as a tale of behind-the-curtain backstabbing and is worth the price of the book alone. So yeah, I'll defend this book. It ain't perfect, but, contrary to some claims, it's not overly-long (as you can see, I wanted more, goddamn it) and none of the author's opinions are unfounded (I've yet to meet, nor do I want to meet, the man who claims that the show didn't decline in quality in the past 13 years). And yes, there are spelling mistakes. Only read it if you are prepared to forgive a man for misspelling Waylon.(less)

like

· see review

Aug 11, 2011

Jeff rated it

I had high expectations for this book. Perhaps too high. Perhaps high for no reason, since the general consensus of reviews I had come across can be summed up by "Meh."

This is an "oral history" of sorts, put together by a man who wrote a [i]Simpsons[/i] article for "Vanity Fair" in 2007. He scraped together interviews with some people and foraged some resources, but could not get many of the main people involved. For example, take a look at the credits of [i]The...moreI had high expectations for this book. Perhaps too high. Perhaps high for no reason, since the general consensus of reviews I had come across can be summed up by "Meh."

This is an "oral history" of sorts, put together by a man who wrote a [i]Simpsons[/i] article for "Vanity Fair" in 2007. He scraped together interviews with some people and foraged some resources, but could not get many of the main people involved. For example, take a look at the credits of [i]The Simpsons[/i] some time, you will see these names prominently displayed on every episode: Matt Groening, James L. Brooks, Sam Simon, Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Hank Azaria, and Harry Shearer. Of those people, Ortved has actual interview material from...wait for it...Hank Azaria. That's it. No one else was directly talked to for this book. He talked to the ex-wives of Groening, Brooks, and Simon. And some writers and producers who haven't worked on the show in over a decade. And scrounged some words from Groening & Brooks talking to other people and magazines. I think being locked out made the author a little bitter, and that bitterness comes through on every page. It seemed like every compliment was backhanded, and he would go out of his way to make a point about frictions or bad attitudes or jerky behavior. All this from a guy who claims to love the show.

Most of the book seemed unnecessary. He had a valid train of thought for a while, namely that it takes a village to raise a legendary TV show, but that thread was lost more times than it was followed. And I feel I need to mention that even technically, the book was not firing on all cylinders. He would re-use quotes from the same source to make similar points in the same chapter. It was full of typos (once I spotted a misspelling of a word, and then [i]in the same paragraph[/i] it was spelled correctly). Major problems all over.

Ortved began and ended the book with similar caveats: that talking about [i]The Simpsons[/i] might be impossible. He used the analogy that talking about music is like singing about architecture. And he isn't necessarily right. But he was not the right guy, this was not the right book, and it was not the right time. It was an unpleasant experience.

Not recommended.(less)

like

· see review

Jul 20, 2011

Denise Du Vernay rated it

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 regul...moreThe 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. (less)

like

· see review

Jan 23, 2010

Jj Kwashnak rated it

Amazingly, considering that The Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years now, there has been no official, or authorized, history of the show written. Ortved may have set out to write an authorized history, but it is obvious that he was not getting the cooperation he felt was necessary. As a result he has created an unauthorized history of our favorite family, pulled together from what seems to be extensive sets of interviews with many key people in and around the Simpsons universe as well as pu...moreAmazingly, considering that The Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years now, there has been no official, or authorized, history of the show written. Ortved may have set out to write an authorized history, but it is obvious that he was not getting the cooperation he felt was necessary. As a result he has created an unauthorized history of our favorite family, pulled together from what seems to be extensive sets of interviews with many key people in and around the Simpsons universe as well as pulled from various printed interviews and articles by others who may not have been willing to participate. What results is less of a story, and more of a magic window into the birth and formative first decade of the show. Told by a series of recollections and vignettes, we are taken behind the scenes of the Matt Groening being involved in creating interstitials for the Tracey Ullman Show, the eventual spinoff of the shorts into a full blown show, the show becoming a worldwide phenomenon and the resulting legal wrangling, staff changes and hurt feelings that a mega-success brings.

The lack of participation by many vital players, including Matt Groening himself, necessitates the use of printed comments in the stead of interview comments. The lack of cooperation also frees Ortved from having to be objective in his writing, allowing others to present only one side of the story. It also probably limited his access to some areas, especially within Fox, that might have fleshed out pieces and give some heft to his story. This lack of objectivity allows the author to speak very highly of the first dozen seasons with high praise, milder praise for the next few seasons and then almost outright dismissal of work from the 9th or 10th season on.

That said, the book is extremely entertaining, very informative and eye opening and just a great glimpse into the Juggernaut that is The Simpsons. It is the work of love of a fan who is trying to explain how lightning was captured in a bottle and the focus can be on the overall story, with varying amounts of attention paid to the details. It would have been nice to get a better overview of who everyone is and how they fit together (much of the conflicts that appear involve people who are around for a year or two, are influential and then leave), but since the goal is to produce a history told in individual’s recollections and stories rather than in a cohesive narrative, this is not a major issue. While not perfect, the book is a fascinating read of anyone interested in the history of The Simpsons as a show and how Fox became the House that Bart built.
(less)

like 2 likes

· see review

Feb 28, 2010

Chris rated it

Shelves: 2010, non-fiction

Ortved's history has all the strengths and problems that go hand-in-hand with an "unauthorized" history... while the lack of access to the key players in the creation and production of The Simpsons leaves gaps in coverage, these gaps also allow the author quite a bit of leverage in interpreting the key events throughout the now twenty year history of the venerable animated series. While this is probably more of a hindrance for accuracy, I don't expect to see many of the architects of T...more

like

· see review

Nov 01, 2009

Andres rated it

This is a fascinating read about the origins of The Simpsons. This is my first time reading an oral history type book and while it provides a more immediate point of view of the events by most of the people who were there, it is both illuminated and interrupted by the author. He alternates between giving useful context with useless commentary. His snarky opinions about this and that aren't helpful or welcome, and seems to serve as nothing more than a platform for what he thinks rather than letti

...more

like

· see review

Jan 16, 2010

Mark Weinberg rated it

This was a very labored read for me (even though I love the Simpsons). The book had some interesting (read very detailed) stories about the writing team, but the things that come to mind when I recall reading this are the excruciatingly dull histories on Groening and J. L. Brooks and the overarching theme that most of the creative team, actors, and execs behind the show range from mean/shady to down right treacherous. There are quite a few stories about how people betrayed their friends and col...more

like

· see review

Feb 11, 2010

Jason Pettus rated it

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com:]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted illegally.)

Although the staff of the cultural touchstone The Simpsons has done a good job over the years of keeping it quiet, the fact is that there's been plenty of drama and infighting behind the scenes of that show (now officially the longest-running prime-time television program in history); that's t...more

like 1 like

· see review

Feb 16, 2010

Mike rated it

Shelves: history, amst-ish

This book is a fairly exhaustively researched history of The Simpsons from the Tracy Ullman show through season 9-ish. The breadth and depth of the interviews is truly amazing. It's noted in just about every review that Ortved failed to get interviews with Groening, Brooks, or Simon, but honestly it would be hard to trust anything those three said as impartial anyway.

The way Ortved disparaged seasons 10 to present was a little grating, but he included several interviews of people wh...more

like

· see review

Jan 20, 2012

Allefra25 rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: 2012

This book was in need of an editor. Not even necessarily a good one. Just someone to correct the extremely pathetic and simple misspellings. There were also some factual errors and the book got very repetitive. I hated how the author switched between being completely objective to spouting off his opinions at random and without even much reason. Also there was one anecdote where the animators produced something where Grampa Simpson and Maggie have sex? But then he never talks about it again or ev...more

like

· see review

Jan 11, 2010

Sarah rated it

Shelves: read-in-2010

There were a fair amount of pearls in the sections about the show's development and the discussions of the writers. I learned a lot about George Meyer. But beyond that, it was not entertaining. The analysis of the show's impact, by author John Ortvedt (who? exactly) and others, was not particularly insightful in most cases. Opinions were frequently presented as facts and not supported. Egregious typos and factual errors were rampant; some people's names were spelled in two different ways in the ...more

like 1 like

· see review

Apr 19, 2011

Harold rated it

Not a perfect history of The Simpsons, but serious fans of the show will find lots of great anecdotes and behind-the-scenes drama. It's an oral history, so it does get a little repetitive at times - and the fact that it's unauthorized means that none of the current writers, producers, and voice actors contribute (except Hank Azaria, for some reason). Of course, being unauthorized means the book isn't afraid to address the show's major decline in quality over the years. And there's definitely ...more

like

· see review

Jan 07, 2011

Tom Gase rated it

An interesting read on the greatest show of all time--the Simpsons.

I probably should be giving this only a two-star rating since basically none of the Simpsons are interviewed in this book besides Hank Azaria a few times. The book talks a lot about the writers of the show, which I understand was necessary, but it was major overkill. I wanted to know more about the shows, the characters, and what went into making them. Some good examples of this was when the writer, John Ortved, ment...more

like

· see review

Dec 01, 2009

Sean rated it

My review is now up at Popmatters: here.

A preview:

Imagine you are waiting tables at a wedding reception. You wander among the tables, filling glasses and laying down plates of food. You are likely to hear snippets of conversation, most likely about the bride and groom, about their families, about their past, their plans, their future. What you hear will likely be out of context, sometimes probably even incorrect, contradictory. The groom works for a bank. No, he’s

...more

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 10, 2011

William rated it

Shelves: ipad

I learned plenty from reading this, especially about the myriad power struggles involved with getting the show on the air and its development into the incredible 1990s institution it became, not to mention relative contributions of James L. Brooks, Matt Groening and (especially) Sam Simon. This is not to say it's a great book. Certainly the "oral history" method is somewhat disjointed, but those are the best parts of the book. The real issue is that the author makes frequent errors and...more

like

· see review

May 04, 2010

Ken rated it

good as a really brisk, oral history on the early years (ie- the good ones) of 'the simpsons'.
up until now, all i had was to go by was commentary off the dvds, which while great, hilarious and quite informative, because some people never showed up (jim brooks, sam simon, etc), it was obviously slanted. i had no idea how much influence they (and apparently not matt groening) had to the show's early success. way to toot your horn matt.
granted, the writer has a STRONG bias as well (i ag...more

like

· see review

Dec 30, 2009

Jeff Talbott rated it

This never-dull oral history of The Simpsons is also slightly repetitive and loses steam about halfway through. Author/Editor John Ortved says in the opening that it will not be objective, and that becomes clearer and clearer as he says time and time again the best years of the show are 10 years behind us. Though this may be true, it starts to sound as if it's the ax he came to grind rather than the conclusion we're all arriving at together. Still, it's great to read eyewitness accounts about...more

like

· see review

Jan 15, 2010

Steve rated it

Overall interesting and fun to read. John Ortved's running comments were, for the most part, lame. Formulating the 'storyline" and putting contributors comments in context works. His personal comments and opinions on what is happening at the time see clumsy. This book's strength lies in the voices of the people who actually worked on the show, their anecdotes and behind the scenes dirt, not in Ortved's opinions on the show.

I liked the "oral history" format and ho...more

like 1 like

· see review

Feb 01, 2011

Charles Martin Reed rated it

Enjoyable, but somewhat sterile. As a collection of quotes and musings, it is bested by any given season's director's commentary. As a quasi-intellectual ruminations on the philosophical verve of the sitcom, it is bested by older, more specialized texts like "Planet Simpsons" (which Ortved actually references several times here). I'd offer the forewarning that this book is meant to appeal to only the most die-hard of fans, but that the statement seems so redundant as to belittle both y...more

like

· see review

Jul 02, 2011

James rated it

An interesting read - particularly insightful into how the US TV production system works, and some of the politics behind the show.

I'd liked to have seen more on the later years and more of explanation of the decline of the show, though it was illuminating how apparently the writers themselves admit these days its not as good as it was and they see it as their aim to match the older shows - and not beat them.

Bit of annnoying read because its driven by quotes from other ar...more

like

· see review

Nov 27, 2011

Mark Milner rated it

· review of another edition

Let's start with the best part of this book. Ortved offers up a history of The Simpsons, probably the most important (and certainly the most culturally relevant) show of our time. There's a trove in information here in the genesis of the show and about the principals behind it. And Ortved's done his homework. Although he doesn't always speak to the principals, he sees to it their voices - Matt Groening and George Meyer stand out in particular - still appear, albiet from other sources. His book e...moreLet's start with the best part of this book. Ortved offers up a history of The Simpsons, probably the most important (and certainly the most culturally relevant) show of our time. There's a trove in information here in the genesis of the show and about the principals behind it. And Ortved's done his homework. Although he doesn't always speak to the principals, he sees to it their voices - Matt Groening and George Meyer stand out in particular - still appear, albiet from other sources. His book explains how, and more importantly why, the show came to fruition and rose to become, well, The Simpsons.

For all that, though, the book is still maddeningly elusive: at times it comes very close to matching the masterful Live from New York, but it never quite gets there. Some of this is easy to figure out: the show hasn't ended, so the narrative arc is still open; James Brooks is still so powerful in Hollywood, nobody wants to get on his bad side; etc. There some very good chapters in here (the one profiling Meyer and John Swartzwelder is especially great), but the book wanders as it goes on, first wandering around it's own timeline and finally going from a history of the show to an analysis of it's legacy.

It's frustrating to see Ortved go this route: he goes from being a narrator to a critic, mixing history with his opinions about when the show started to sink . He editorializes about later episodes of the show, going into detail about how it's become what it used to mock. By book's end, it's just as much about Family Guy and South Park as it is The Simpsons.

Is it worth getting for fans of the show? I'm not sure. Ortved goes back, again and again, to a New Yorker history of the show and a Believer profile of Meyer. I haven't read the originals of either, but other reviews have suggested they say essentially the same history in much fewer words (and for less money). Maybe there's a sweet spot somewhere, where somebody can be a big enough fan to want to read a 300-page book about a show but not big enough to have read many of the stories Ortved quotes. Maybe someone in that spot would enjoy this book. But even then, the constant editorializing makes me hesitant to recommend this book. It's not a bad read, but it's one that could have been a lot better.(less)

like

· see review

Jul 20, 2011

Denise Du Vernay rated it

· review of another edition

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 regul...moreThe 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. (less)

like

· see review

Feb 01, 2011

Brandon rated it

If you're interested in a sometimes repetitive but ultimately informative history of one of the greatest shows in television history, John Ortved's book is hard to beat.

My history with The Simpsons is somewhat storied: my parents forbade me from watching it during the first season and stuck to their guns after briefly relenting during Herb Powell's first appearance in the second season. I ruined it for myself when I mimicked Bart's repeated sing-song use of the word "bastard"...moreIf you're interested in a sometimes repetitive but ultimately informative history of one of the greatest shows in television history, John Ortved's book is hard to beat.

My history with The Simpsons is somewhat storied: my parents forbade me from watching it during the first season and stuck to their guns after briefly relenting during Herb Powell's first appearance in the second season. I ruined it for myself when I mimicked Bart's repeated sing-song use of the word "bastard" in reference to his newly discovered uncle. Once the show went into syndication and I was a freshman or sophomore in high school, they figured that there wasn't anything I could hear and repeat in a sing-song voice at school that was any worse than what the show would say.

All of the years of being unable to watch the funniest program on television, that my friends described and quoted in detail every Monday morning, was torture and fostered in me an obsession that I can't quite describe. With all of the VHS tapes I had acquired over the years, I started to record each of the episodes airing twice a night, taking care not to get any repeats. During the rare week or two that I would be grounded, I made sure to give an annoyed friend a tape and tell them which of the two episodes each night they needed to get for me, giving specific instructions to skip the commercials. No one ever did me the favor more than once. I would watch and re-watch these tapes and several of them actually broke from the wear and tear of over use. Every book, t-shirt or doodad I saw, I began to purchase. This was long after the fad of The Simpsons had faded and merchandising, while still plentiful in certain areas, had subsided to a large degree. I still sought the products out, much to my mother's chagrin. My dad, meanwhile, just thought the show was stupid, but he was used to his son liking stupid things. Plus, he occasionally laughed at it, despite the "stupidity."

Soon, between my experience in absorbing as much knowledge as I could about the show, associating myself exclusively with like-minded fans, and countless hours spent on the burgeoning world wide web that housed almost as many sites devoted to the erstwhile family as it did to warehousing illicit films, I felt secure considering myself a king of Simpsons trivia. However, the behind-the-scenes info? My knowledge there was merely surface level. Matt Groening created everything that the viewer saw, Conan O'Brien wrote for the show for awhile, Bart Simpson was voiced by a girl, and each episode took six months to make from start to finish.

What works about John Ortved's book is that it clears up the misconceptions that exist. Of the aforementioned list, the first one, that Matt Groening is solely responsible for everything that the viewer saw, is the only one that really matters. Ortved conducted extensive interviews with a number of former writers, producers, voice actors, animators, guest stars and even Rupert Murdoch himself. The unauthorized portion of the article comes from the fact that next to no one currently working on the show, including heavy hitters like Matt Groening and James Brooks cooperated with Ortved. Whether that is the reason they art portrayed in a negative light or because the truth would have done so regardless of their cooperation is anyone's guess. Either way, Sam Simon deserves most of the credit for the show's eventual look and humor, despite Groening initially designing the characters, while most credit Brooks with ensuring the show having an emotional center. Groening, meanwhile, had the best story for the press as an indie comic strip artist made good who was also smart enough to hold onto a large portion of the merchandising rights. Simon, meanwhile, assembled a crack team of Harvard grads who managed to make writing for television something that one needn't be ashamed for the first time in history. Also, as an aside, John Swartzwelder, the reclusive writer who left the show to write humor novellas, only gets about seven pages devoted to him but he's easily the most fascinating, mysterious and funniest guy profiled. I would easily read an entire book about him were it available.

The style of writing is very similar to Live From New York An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live as Told By Its Stars Writers and Guests, except each chapter is centered around a unifying theme while the SNL book seemingly goes year by year. The latter method, along with the insane 656 page length, made for a boring read desperately in need of an editor. Ortved's method breaks up the interviews with his own editorializing about the rise and fall of the show's quality as well as some conjecture and hypothesizing about the veracity of certain quotations taken from other sources that weren't interviews conducted by him.

The most apt analogy about the series is made towards the end of the book and one that I'll repeat here. With it's influence and early and consistent quality, The Simpsons can be compared to The Beatles. However, it's steep decline, due in large part to Al Jean's extended tenure as solo showrunner has seen the show become more and more akin to the Rolling Stones: influential and notable in the beginning but now parodies of themselves and what they used to represent, living on the past glory and street cred they established long ago. And that part made me sad, so I've pulled out the first few seasons on DVD (Seriously, DVD seasons rule way more than my tapes of syndicated episodes with commercials from 1996) and have decided to re-watch them. That's how I'd like to always remember the show anyway.(less)

like

· see review

Sep 04, 2010

Steven rated it

One thing that becomes clear right from the introduction is that this book is written by a fanboy. One concern this might raise is that the narrative might be overly flattering or even devolve into an extended paper-bound make out session. It's therefore something of an upset that, even with the knowledge that it was "unauthorized and uncensored," this history turned out to be almost entirely negative. The first half reads as a typical dirt-dishing Hollywood biography, with lots of ...more

like

· see review

Mar 02, 2010

AG rated it

Shelves: read-2010

This ethically questionable take on the history of "The Simpsons" gets high marks ONLY because it's about "The Simpsons," and ONLY because it's a quick read. John Ortved really deserves a public shaming by Oprah, because this book, although dishy and fun, is about as unbiased and full of integrity as the KKK. If you can wade through the unintelligible writing and drown out the sound of the giant axe being ground, what you'll find is basically one elaborate (though rollicking)...more

like

· see review

Dec 22, 2009

Jinny Chung rated it

Enjoyed some chapters over others. Ortved is excessively subjective -- and his bitterness is so lucid that the book practically bleeds black. His resentment toward those who (probably) refused interviews is so apparent! Nevertheless, I had a good laugh reading about the writing process. There's even a chapter entitled "The Godfathers" that focuses on George Meyer and John Swartzwelder, two of the most brilliant comedy writers to ever have walked upright. Despite my problems with Ortve...more

like

· see review

Feb 26, 2010

David rated it

A must read for any Simpsons fanatic. Some really funny anecdotes in here about what went on behind the scenes of the show throughout the years. It's also pretty surprising to learn just how little Matt Groening, James L. Brooks, and Sam Simon have to do with it. That said, if you're not the sort of person who has a Simpson quote ready for every occasion (I plead guilty!) then this probably won't be all that interesting to you.

like

· see review

Dec 31, 2009

Michael rated it

Makes me wish I owned a fraction of a percent of the Simpsons franchise.
Ortved does a good job of describing the creation of the show, from its Tracy Ulman roots to the monster it is today.
Somewhat of a disjointed effort, what with the interviews and opinions that make up the bulk of the material, similar to Tom Shales book on SNL.
Still, it does a good job of showing the business side of this empire.

like

· see review

Jan 05, 2010

Chris rated it

Dives into the history of arguably the most popular show of the last 25 years. Spends a lot of time with specific writers (and the writing room) but doesn't go into too much detail which is a shame. It's an oral history, but it seems there wasn't too much cooperation, so the author culled a lot of the material from old interviews.

Some good bits of information, but by the end it left me wanting to know more.

like

· see review

title link	preview: The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History
avg rating	preview: The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History Goodreads rating: 3.16 (329 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6602717-the-simpsons?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1312059253m/6602717.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6602717-the-simpsons?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History by John Ortved[/url]

The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (9)

Genres

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Simpsons

The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

combine Other Editions (9)

Genres

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Simpsons

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (9)