What do you think?
Rate this book
Coyote v. Acme
When Ian Frazier's first collection of humorous essays, Dating Your Mom, was published in 1986, Time's reviewer Paul Gray called it "hilarious" and warned readers to" read sparingly... By 1996 another collection may appear." And he was rights. Frazier's new collection, Coyote v. Acme, includes twenty-two more side-splitting glimpses into some of the more oddball corners of the American mind. The title essay imagines the opening statement of an attorney for cartoon character Wile E. Coyote in a product liability suit against the Acme Company, supplier of unpredictable rocket sleds and faulty spring-powered shoes. Other essays are about the golfing career of comedian Bob Hope, a commencement address given by a Satanist college president, a suburban short story attacked by Germans, the problem of issues versus non-issues, and the theories of revolutionary stand-up comedy from Comrade Stalin.
128 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1996
28 people are currently reading
447 people want to read
About the author
Ian Frazier
51 books249 followersIan Frazier (b.1951) is an American writer and humorist. He is the author of Travels in Siberia, Great Plains, On the Rez, Lamentations of the Father and Coyote V. Acme, among other works, all published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. He graduated from Harvard University. A frequent contributor to The New Yorker, he lives in Montclair, New Jersey.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/ianfra...
http://us.macmillan.com/author/ianfra...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews
October 1, 2012
Fellow Goodreader, Brian DiMattia, describes COYOTE V. ACME as " brilliant and hilarious...but only for certain senses of humor. It's random, high-brow, and intellectual. It's ironic, but obtusely ironic. It's requires a knowledge of, or at least an appreciation for, both literature and pop-culture and often cross-breeds them to produce bastard children of comedic brilliance."
I cannot agree more with this assessment.
Ian Frazier has taken often overlooked, mundane, or talking points that have been talked to death and resurrected them with an infusion of humor and deft criticism. To put it another way, oftentimes, when you are reading this, you'll shake your head in agreement and amazement, wondering why you had never looked at said topic like this before.
Some of these essays are absurd, just enjoy those ones.
Others are profound segments that look at banking, human connections, insurance, sports, what it means to be a New Yorker, what New Yorkers think about movies being made in New York, employment, and other various topics.
Allow me to elucidate upon some of my favorite essays:
"Last Segment": A farcical romp detailing what happens when a favorite long-running television program comes to a screeching halt. You know you've been there. But what we all think, albeit subconsciously, is what our beloved program will be replaced with. For myself, MacGyver, The A-Team, Ed, and Miami Vice were some of the shows I scheduled my life around. Sad, I know. It comes down to this: We, television watchers, have a tendency to blur the line between reality and fiction, which results in us making the fictitious characters come to life in a very unhealthy and exaggerated manner. Be honest, you've done this.
"Boswell's Life of Don Johnson": This one is probably appreciated by the true literary lovers (or those of us that are English grad students who thought we were more literary than others). Frazier parodies Boswell's THE LIFE OF SAMUEL JOHNSON. And if this isn't hilarious enough, the things Frazier decides to highlight in Don Johnson's life make the essay gut-busting. Miami Vice. Don Johnson's music career. Too bad Nash Bridges came a bit too late.
"Coyote v. Acme": This is the funniest essay I have ever read. You remember all the times when you were watching the Roadrunner escape the devious plans of Wile E. Coyote, sitting there in front of the tv, shaking your head at how stupid Wile E. was, right? Well we had it all wrong. Wile E. Coyote was in fact a genius. It was all ACME's fault. Frazier knew this all along. In this essay, Frazier represents Wile E. in a lawsuit against ACME for malfunctioning products. Pure brilliance!
"Have You Ever": A sidesplitting essay that looks at the difficulties of writing a life insurance policy to soap opera actors and actresses, Frazier hits a home run with this one. Honestly, I used to watch Days of Our Lives when I was in college. It was the thing to do while you ate your lunch. Plus, I met a lot of women doing this. I digress. While watching Days, one character really intrigued me more than the rest: Marlena. This was one whacked-out lady. She is who I envisioned as I read Frazier's essay. How would an insurance adjuster write a policy for a woman that: has been possessed, was almost the victim of the Salem Stalker, faked her death -- twice!, has an evil twin sister, has suffered amnesia, and is constantly battling on again/off again arch enemy Stefano? You may have to read the essay and then youtube an old episode to fully appreciate this.
"Issues and Non-Issues": This essay may be the most prescient of the collection. Frazier makes a hilarious argument on how we have taken important topics and convoluted them so much that all we can do to understand them is to focus on the abstract or mundane or minutia of said topic. Although this essay was written in 1996, it sill resounds in 2012.
Overall, this is a great collection. Read them separately or in one sitting. Either way, you won't be sorry that you took the time. And, you'll laugh. A lot.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
I cannot agree more with this assessment.
Ian Frazier has taken often overlooked, mundane, or talking points that have been talked to death and resurrected them with an infusion of humor and deft criticism. To put it another way, oftentimes, when you are reading this, you'll shake your head in agreement and amazement, wondering why you had never looked at said topic like this before.
Some of these essays are absurd, just enjoy those ones.
Others are profound segments that look at banking, human connections, insurance, sports, what it means to be a New Yorker, what New Yorkers think about movies being made in New York, employment, and other various topics.
Allow me to elucidate upon some of my favorite essays:
"Last Segment": A farcical romp detailing what happens when a favorite long-running television program comes to a screeching halt. You know you've been there. But what we all think, albeit subconsciously, is what our beloved program will be replaced with. For myself, MacGyver, The A-Team, Ed, and Miami Vice were some of the shows I scheduled my life around. Sad, I know. It comes down to this: We, television watchers, have a tendency to blur the line between reality and fiction, which results in us making the fictitious characters come to life in a very unhealthy and exaggerated manner. Be honest, you've done this.
"Boswell's Life of Don Johnson": This one is probably appreciated by the true literary lovers (or those of us that are English grad students who thought we were more literary than others). Frazier parodies Boswell's THE LIFE OF SAMUEL JOHNSON. And if this isn't hilarious enough, the things Frazier decides to highlight in Don Johnson's life make the essay gut-busting. Miami Vice. Don Johnson's music career. Too bad Nash Bridges came a bit too late.
"Coyote v. Acme": This is the funniest essay I have ever read. You remember all the times when you were watching the Roadrunner escape the devious plans of Wile E. Coyote, sitting there in front of the tv, shaking your head at how stupid Wile E. was, right? Well we had it all wrong. Wile E. Coyote was in fact a genius. It was all ACME's fault. Frazier knew this all along. In this essay, Frazier represents Wile E. in a lawsuit against ACME for malfunctioning products. Pure brilliance!
"Have You Ever": A sidesplitting essay that looks at the difficulties of writing a life insurance policy to soap opera actors and actresses, Frazier hits a home run with this one. Honestly, I used to watch Days of Our Lives when I was in college. It was the thing to do while you ate your lunch. Plus, I met a lot of women doing this. I digress. While watching Days, one character really intrigued me more than the rest: Marlena. This was one whacked-out lady. She is who I envisioned as I read Frazier's essay. How would an insurance adjuster write a policy for a woman that: has been possessed, was almost the victim of the Salem Stalker, faked her death -- twice!, has an evil twin sister, has suffered amnesia, and is constantly battling on again/off again arch enemy Stefano? You may have to read the essay and then youtube an old episode to fully appreciate this.
"Issues and Non-Issues": This essay may be the most prescient of the collection. Frazier makes a hilarious argument on how we have taken important topics and convoluted them so much that all we can do to understand them is to focus on the abstract or mundane or minutia of said topic. Although this essay was written in 1996, it sill resounds in 2012.
Overall, this is a great collection. Read them separately or in one sitting. Either way, you won't be sorry that you took the time. And, you'll laugh. A lot.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
October 6, 2015
Though praised as one of the forerunners in American humor writing, Ian Frazier fails to deliver any laughs outside of pity or nostalgia for shoddy, safe witticisms.
In concept, Ian Frazier’s 1997 book Coyote V. Acme (Picador, ISBN: 0312420587) should turn out great: twenty-two essay/short-story hybrids, each satirizing a different topic in American culture from a different point-of-view. However, in execution, Frazier falls between otiose wit and contrived, trying-too-hard absurdity.
The First Essay Gives Way to Much Weaker Writing
First essay “The Last Segment” depicts the unity that The Mary Tyler Moore Show brought to the world, almost convincing the reader that a balance was thrown off upon the cancellation of the series. The writing is pretty good, too: informal, yet, poetic, with a prose-poem that could stand alone thrown in the middle for good measure. This essay was written closer to Frazier’s true thoughts as a humorist, pop-culturist, and literary scholar.
With the next essays came the bad humor that could be (and is) found in freshman creative writing workshops and/or Dave Barry books: dumb, knee-slapping groaners that appeal to middle-aged housewives, clever kids with nothing to say, and old men who are pragmatically tactful and ignorant as to how what’s funny has changed since their glory days. This sort of “nyuk nyuk” tripe ruins almost the entire book, and only parts of essays even come close to resembling interesting as one reads beyond “The Last Segment.”
Frazier and Pop-Culture
Frazier appears to be knowledgeable when he touches upon pop-culture topics, but his end effect is uneventful. “Coyote v. Acme” is as predictable as one would think it is. “Bowell’s Life of Don Johnson” could have been extremely funny if it had forgone the broader appeal of trying to portray someone talking about “his buddy” Don Johnson as this everyday guy and made some cracks geared towards Miami Vice and Johnson’s failed music career. It’s not shop talk: it’s playing to a specific audience.
“Thanks For the Memory” follows Bob Hope’s elaborate and fabricated golfing career with the sort of fair-natured ribbing that tries so hard to nail an edgy-yet-tasteful type of humor that it ends up coming off as safe as a glass of water and a slice of bread. Leno wouldn’t touch this one. Besides, the two contradicting stories from two different biographies as told by the same Bob Hope are funny enough. The pages that follow stomp all over the joke.
The Infamous Line
After standing on his soapbox and waxing heavy-handedly about humor (“Stalin’s Chuckle”), New York (“Making ‘Movies’ In New York”), and tax forms (“Line 46a”), Frazier ends all of his preachy pieces with pseudo-asides that sound like answers to questions nobody asked. “Brandy By Firelight,” “Child of War,” and “The Afternoon of June 8, 1991” are gimmick stories whose only redeeming quality is that they’re short and able to be skipped with no fear of missing a big payoff at the end. With the exception of “The Last Segment,” that statement is representative of the entire collection.
Frazier walks that fine line between genius and stupid, and he walks it very poorly. His randomness is artificial, the interaction between his characters is stock and overwrought with predictable retorts, and – perhaps worst of all – his wit is sharp but pointed at nothing.
In concept, Ian Frazier’s 1997 book Coyote V. Acme (Picador, ISBN: 0312420587) should turn out great: twenty-two essay/short-story hybrids, each satirizing a different topic in American culture from a different point-of-view. However, in execution, Frazier falls between otiose wit and contrived, trying-too-hard absurdity.
The First Essay Gives Way to Much Weaker Writing
First essay “The Last Segment” depicts the unity that The Mary Tyler Moore Show brought to the world, almost convincing the reader that a balance was thrown off upon the cancellation of the series. The writing is pretty good, too: informal, yet, poetic, with a prose-poem that could stand alone thrown in the middle for good measure. This essay was written closer to Frazier’s true thoughts as a humorist, pop-culturist, and literary scholar.
With the next essays came the bad humor that could be (and is) found in freshman creative writing workshops and/or Dave Barry books: dumb, knee-slapping groaners that appeal to middle-aged housewives, clever kids with nothing to say, and old men who are pragmatically tactful and ignorant as to how what’s funny has changed since their glory days. This sort of “nyuk nyuk” tripe ruins almost the entire book, and only parts of essays even come close to resembling interesting as one reads beyond “The Last Segment.”
Frazier and Pop-Culture
Frazier appears to be knowledgeable when he touches upon pop-culture topics, but his end effect is uneventful. “Coyote v. Acme” is as predictable as one would think it is. “Bowell’s Life of Don Johnson” could have been extremely funny if it had forgone the broader appeal of trying to portray someone talking about “his buddy” Don Johnson as this everyday guy and made some cracks geared towards Miami Vice and Johnson’s failed music career. It’s not shop talk: it’s playing to a specific audience.
“Thanks For the Memory” follows Bob Hope’s elaborate and fabricated golfing career with the sort of fair-natured ribbing that tries so hard to nail an edgy-yet-tasteful type of humor that it ends up coming off as safe as a glass of water and a slice of bread. Leno wouldn’t touch this one. Besides, the two contradicting stories from two different biographies as told by the same Bob Hope are funny enough. The pages that follow stomp all over the joke.
The Infamous Line
After standing on his soapbox and waxing heavy-handedly about humor (“Stalin’s Chuckle”), New York (“Making ‘Movies’ In New York”), and tax forms (“Line 46a”), Frazier ends all of his preachy pieces with pseudo-asides that sound like answers to questions nobody asked. “Brandy By Firelight,” “Child of War,” and “The Afternoon of June 8, 1991” are gimmick stories whose only redeeming quality is that they’re short and able to be skipped with no fear of missing a big payoff at the end. With the exception of “The Last Segment,” that statement is representative of the entire collection.
Frazier walks that fine line between genius and stupid, and he walks it very poorly. His randomness is artificial, the interaction between his characters is stock and overwrought with predictable retorts, and – perhaps worst of all – his wit is sharp but pointed at nothing.
May 9, 2025
Coyote V. Acme was fine. I think a lot of the stories are very funny in theory but don't work very well as actual longform bits, so for many of these essays, Frazier is like, "Hey wouldn't this be funny," and you're like, "yeah that does sound funny," and then you read 4 pages of it and you're like, "Yep, that was pretty much as funny as I was thinking it might be."
The problem is many of these essays don't actually play with the premise at all, so you get exactly what you expect. In the titular story, an attorney describes in very legal diction Wile E. Coyote getting injured by an Acme product, which is quite funny and made me smile. But then Frazier does that exact thing two more times, and by the end it's like, okay I get the joke.
All this said, there were periodic bits that did make me laugh. I thought Webbing was a very intriguing story, and though they went on slightly too long, I was a fan of Have You Ever and Linton's Whatnots. Definitely a good read for some flash humor.
The problem is many of these essays don't actually play with the premise at all, so you get exactly what you expect. In the titular story, an attorney describes in very legal diction Wile E. Coyote getting injured by an Acme product, which is quite funny and made me smile. But then Frazier does that exact thing two more times, and by the end it's like, okay I get the joke.
All this said, there were periodic bits that did make me laugh. I thought Webbing was a very intriguing story, and though they went on slightly too long, I was a fan of Have You Ever and Linton's Whatnots. Definitely a good read for some flash humor.
April 30, 2014
“Coyote v. Acme,” is a short story by Ian Frazier. It started in a courtroom with Wile E. Coyote pleading to the judge about the mishaps and injuries he encountered when using Acme products. He purchased these products from Acme to capture the roadrunner. The first thing he talked about malfunctioning was the Acme Rocket Sled. When he sat on it, it took off at high speed and stretched his whole body out as he tried to hold on. The second contraption that malfunctioned was the Rocket Skates. After buying the Acme Rocket Sled, he decided to stay away rockets and purchased a bomb. When he lit it, it detonated too quickly and injured him quite horribly. Finally, he thought he was very intelligent when he bought spring powered shoes because they did not involve any rockets or fire. The springs worked up until he had to land on his prey, because the springs recoiled and sent him flying into a boulder. After explaining everything that had happened to him he asked the court to regard the economic implications and to award him the damages, worth about thirty-eight million, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
The main character in the story is Wile E. Coyote. He looks and acts like a regular coyote, besides him using man-made contraptions to capture his prey. He also is not very smart seeing as he continued to buy products from the Acme Company. He is the perfect character for the story and goes along great with the television show.
The setting took place in the courtroom the whole time other than when Wile Coyote is explaining the accidents that happened to him while on his escapades. The story can take place anytime, because it does not give a specific time frame or date to when these events took place. The setting is not described a lot out of the courtroom but still gives an idea of where it could have happened.
I would recommend this short story to any person into the Roadrunner and Coyote cartoon or to anyone wanting to read a funny story. I rate this story a three out of five, because it was funny and I enjoyed reading it.
The main character in the story is Wile E. Coyote. He looks and acts like a regular coyote, besides him using man-made contraptions to capture his prey. He also is not very smart seeing as he continued to buy products from the Acme Company. He is the perfect character for the story and goes along great with the television show.
The setting took place in the courtroom the whole time other than when Wile Coyote is explaining the accidents that happened to him while on his escapades. The story can take place anytime, because it does not give a specific time frame or date to when these events took place. The setting is not described a lot out of the courtroom but still gives an idea of where it could have happened.
I would recommend this short story to any person into the Roadrunner and Coyote cartoon or to anyone wanting to read a funny story. I rate this story a three out of five, because it was funny and I enjoyed reading it.
April 2, 2014
I read "Coyote v. Acme" by Ian Frazier. The story talks about various encounters Wile E. Coyote has had with Acme products and their failures. It goes in depth on the failures of the Acme Rocket Sled, a pair of Acme Rocket skates, a spherical Acme Bomb, and a pair of Acme Spring-Powered Shoes. Each fails for different reasons but they all cause harm to Wile E. Coyote. It also tells how Wile E. Coyote intends to proceed and what he expects of the Acme company if the decision is in his favor.
The main character is Wile E. Coyote. He is a professional predator who can never successfully catch his prey. This is almost always due to a failure of an Acme product. He is very intent on receiving funds from the Acme company in return for his losses.
The events that are told of in the story take place mainly in the desert where Wile E. Coyote hunts his prey. The story is told by an attorney in a courtroom somewhere. The time of the story is not specific, but could be related to current time.
Overall I thought "Coyote v. Acme" was an all right story. It did not appeal to my reading interests very much, so I only gave it two out of five stars. The vocabulary was a little difficult at some times, and the author did not do a very good job of keeping my interest throughout the story. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a quick read that enjoys stories of this genre.
The main character is Wile E. Coyote. He is a professional predator who can never successfully catch his prey. This is almost always due to a failure of an Acme product. He is very intent on receiving funds from the Acme company in return for his losses.
The events that are told of in the story take place mainly in the desert where Wile E. Coyote hunts his prey. The story is told by an attorney in a courtroom somewhere. The time of the story is not specific, but could be related to current time.
Overall I thought "Coyote v. Acme" was an all right story. It did not appeal to my reading interests very much, so I only gave it two out of five stars. The vocabulary was a little difficult at some times, and the author did not do a very good job of keeping my interest throughout the story. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a quick read that enjoys stories of this genre.
March 31, 2014
I read the essay, “Coyote V. Acme” written by Ian Frazier. This essay is based as a court hearing for Mr. Wile E. Coyote. Mr. Coyote is suing the Acme Company for it’s faulty equipment and for the damage that it has caused him. Mr. Coyote names four different Acme products in his case that have faltered. Each product acted in a manner in which put Mr. Coyote in extreme pain and discomfort. Mr. Coyote suggests to the court that he receives over $38 million for the total damages that endured.
The author does not go through and describe his characters, he only explains the actions that have happened to him. The characterization of Mr. Coyote does not matter in the essay, and because of this, Frazier does not take the time to write it out.
The setting of the essay is in a Courthouse in Tempe, Arizona. My guess to the date that this occurred would be sometime sometime in the 1990’s, because that was when “The Road Runner Show” was played on TV. The author does not describe the scene or setting of the story because it does not play any factor into the essay.
I would recommend this essay to anyone looking for a humorous writing. I would also recommend this to anyone looking for an example of satire in a writing. I thought this was a very enjoyable and well-written essay.
The author does not go through and describe his characters, he only explains the actions that have happened to him. The characterization of Mr. Coyote does not matter in the essay, and because of this, Frazier does not take the time to write it out.
The setting of the essay is in a Courthouse in Tempe, Arizona. My guess to the date that this occurred would be sometime sometime in the 1990’s, because that was when “The Road Runner Show” was played on TV. The author does not describe the scene or setting of the story because it does not play any factor into the essay.
I would recommend this essay to anyone looking for a humorous writing. I would also recommend this to anyone looking for an example of satire in a writing. I thought this was a very enjoyable and well-written essay.
Read
April 21, 2014I read the book “Coyote V. Acme.” It was written by Ian Frazier. It’s all about how Wile E. Coyote is trying to sue the Acme company for selling him defective products that injure him and cause him not to be able to do his job. In the story he brings up four things that defected while he was trying to use them, and at the end he wants to get 38.75 million dollars for all of the damages they caused him. The court ends up awarding him all of the money.
The main character is Wile E. Coyote. He is a Coyote that lives out in the desert and makes a living off being a predator.
It does not give a specific time or place in the story.
I thought it was a very good story. It was funny how Wile got hurt. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a funny short story to pass some time. The vocabulary isn’t tough. At the end of the day I would give this short story four out of five stars.
The main character is Wile E. Coyote. He is a Coyote that lives out in the desert and makes a living off being a predator.
It does not give a specific time or place in the story.
I thought it was a very good story. It was funny how Wile got hurt. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a funny short story to pass some time. The vocabulary isn’t tough. At the end of the day I would give this short story four out of five stars.
April 2, 2014
Plot: In this story, Wile Coyote is at a decision of suing the ACME company. In the beginning, it tells of how this came to be and throughout the story, it tells of all the products that have failed to catch the prey.
Characterization: Wile Coyote is a self employed hard worker who can’t catch his prey. ACME company is a company who sells faulty products to Wile Coyote.
Setting: The story takes place in Tempe, Arizona in the present time. In order for there to be a mesa, it has to be in a location where you might find one. For example, where it is dry and dusty like Arizona.
Who and Why: I would recommend this story to anyone with a sense of humor. No matter what the age, If you have a sense of humor, than this story is right for you. This story has some humor in it, which can be easily identified and laughed at.
April 14, 2014
Coyote v. Acme is a story written like a courtroom drama. It is about a coyote who continues to get hurt when he uses products from the Acme Company. It makes the coyote out to be a victim of bad products. He thinks the company needs to pay him a huge amount because of their bad products. If you ever watched the Roadrunner cartoons you will be familiar with this story.
The main character in the story is the lawyer for the coyote. He is very good at describing all the injuries to the coyote. The coyote in the story is just an onlooker to the court case.
The story takes place in a courtroom probably in the southwestern United States. It takes place during the 1960's, before they had safety standards for products you buy through the mail.
I would recommend this story to anyone who likes to read short and funny stories.
The main character in the story is the lawyer for the coyote. He is very good at describing all the injuries to the coyote. The coyote in the story is just an onlooker to the court case.
The story takes place in a courtroom probably in the southwestern United States. It takes place during the 1960's, before they had safety standards for products you buy through the mail.
I would recommend this story to anyone who likes to read short and funny stories.
June 30, 2013
Frazier's essays are generally delightful. In this collection, the writing is good, but the main pleasure is in the concept of each article. For example, the title piece, "Coyote v. Acme," is a great idea. Now that you get the joke, though, you don't really need to read through the legalese of the plaintiff's opening statement. Likewise "Boswell's Life of Don Johnson," etc.
The best of the bunch is "Line 46a," the new instructions for tax form 1040 inspired by the tagline for the movie "Point of No Return" -- "The government gave her a choice. Death. Or life as an assassin."
The best of the bunch is "Line 46a," the new instructions for tax form 1040 inspired by the tagline for the movie "Point of No Return" -- "The government gave her a choice. Death. Or life as an assassin."
August 16, 2011
Actually, this should be three or four stars for the title essay. Coyote is bringing a lawsuit against the Acme Company for injuries suffered because of the malfunction of several of Acme's products. Funny. The other pieces were much less clever and funny. One star for them.
September 10, 2014
Don't miss the lawyer's opening statement in Wile E. Coyote lawsuit against the Acme company for its faulty rocket sleds.
April 12, 2019
This is billed as a humor book.
Some of these stories are not really humor. The first, for example, feels more like a coming of age vignette, where someone discovers, through the ending of the Mary Tyler Moore show, that life is finite and endings are inevitable. It's the sort of thing that might be a moving, or at least intentionally moving, passage in a book about a small-town American youth. "Webbing," on the other hand, is hazy and the action is inscrutable, but even in the absurdity the whole of the story feels super serious.
Some are not really stories. There are at least three make-believe forms, call-tree transcripts, and other arrangements which attempt to be honest in the way that conservative humorists think tax jokes are funny.
Some are... well, lots seem to just be weird exercises to prove the author COULD, but not thinking, as a more famous Ian would say, about whether or not he should. The title story is among the more charming, purely out of the nostalgia it brings, but ends up largely being little more than "ha, the coyote should sue for how bad Acme products are!" But this is still better than some premises, where Frazier pulls a quote from somewhere and then uses it as the conceit for a full piece. A snippet about satanists employed in higher ed spawns a too-long keynote speech peppered with predictable demon tourettes... the whole joke is that the speech is occasionally interrupted with buzzes and a completionist list of names for the devil. "Brandy by Firelight" lists, for three entire pages, types of brandy, types of fires, and the onomatopoetic laughter each brandy would produce, literalizing a simile beyond an inch of its life. This is the curse of so many of these stories: the joke, if it was ever to be funny, is stretched like taffy until it snaps. That this formula is used so often makes the book frequently painful.
These are not entirely flawed pieces, although none are without. In "Thanks for the Memory," Frazier quotes two entire contradictory Bob Hope stories, and then does that characteristic stretch, but because the entire concept is built around exaggeration, it is less painful to experience. "Linton's Whatnots," well, I'm not really sure what to make of it, but it crosses so many attempted formats, and tells a weirdly compelling tale of betrayal and obsession, if based in the banal, that I sort of wish I'd already read Wuthering Heights (and arguably I should get around to doing so soon, just in case). "The Novel's Main Character" is short enough to let its minimal framework and snarky conceit thrive. But overall, this misses the mark too often, and for too consistent a reason, for me to understand its appeal.
Some of these stories are not really humor. The first, for example, feels more like a coming of age vignette, where someone discovers, through the ending of the Mary Tyler Moore show, that life is finite and endings are inevitable. It's the sort of thing that might be a moving, or at least intentionally moving, passage in a book about a small-town American youth. "Webbing," on the other hand, is hazy and the action is inscrutable, but even in the absurdity the whole of the story feels super serious.
Some are not really stories. There are at least three make-believe forms, call-tree transcripts, and other arrangements which attempt to be honest in the way that conservative humorists think tax jokes are funny.
Some are... well, lots seem to just be weird exercises to prove the author COULD, but not thinking, as a more famous Ian would say, about whether or not he should. The title story is among the more charming, purely out of the nostalgia it brings, but ends up largely being little more than "ha, the coyote should sue for how bad Acme products are!" But this is still better than some premises, where Frazier pulls a quote from somewhere and then uses it as the conceit for a full piece. A snippet about satanists employed in higher ed spawns a too-long keynote speech peppered with predictable demon tourettes... the whole joke is that the speech is occasionally interrupted with buzzes and a completionist list of names for the devil. "Brandy by Firelight" lists, for three entire pages, types of brandy, types of fires, and the onomatopoetic laughter each brandy would produce, literalizing a simile beyond an inch of its life. This is the curse of so many of these stories: the joke, if it was ever to be funny, is stretched like taffy until it snaps. That this formula is used so often makes the book frequently painful.
These are not entirely flawed pieces, although none are without. In "Thanks for the Memory," Frazier quotes two entire contradictory Bob Hope stories, and then does that characteristic stretch, but because the entire concept is built around exaggeration, it is less painful to experience. "Linton's Whatnots," well, I'm not really sure what to make of it, but it crosses so many attempted formats, and tells a weirdly compelling tale of betrayal and obsession, if based in the banal, that I sort of wish I'd already read Wuthering Heights (and arguably I should get around to doing so soon, just in case). "The Novel's Main Character" is short enough to let its minimal framework and snarky conceit thrive. But overall, this misses the mark too often, and for too consistent a reason, for me to understand its appeal.
June 1, 2013
(More like 3.5 stars.) Going to the library to find Mark Twain's travel books, I was directed to the humor section. There I came across the three thin volumes that form the basis of this triple review. Generally speaking, it's probably not fair to the authors to compare their respective works, but I'll exercise the prerogative anyway because these are all so similar (and who's gonna stop me). Each of these books weighs in at a squidge over 100 pages, with about 20 short essays that achieve absurdity mostly by putting banal material in exotic contexts, or vice-versa.
Here's my ranking and synopsis of each of these books:
Steve Martin's Pure Drivel is the funniest. Martin writes mostly as his Jerk character, a hyper-arrogant naïf whose self-assurance is wholly unjustified by his intelligence. So the first three chapters are (1) A Public Apology, about a politician prepping for his latest campaign by publicly acknowledging his past gaffes (a list that gets increasingly more ridiculous)… from prison; (2) Writing is Easy!, a hack's quid erat demonstrandum; and (3) Yes, in My Own Backyard, in which the author explains how he came to conclude that his birdbath was in fact a heretofore undiscovered sculpture by Raphael.
Drivel is driven by wordplay, exhibiting Martin's appreciation of language for the sheer joy of its sound and also for its function as a logic machine. As to the former, there's a delightful chapter dedicated to introducing the sledgehammer to the beginning tool user. "The novice sledgehammerer (from the German sledgehammeramalamadingdong) must be familiar with a few terms," he writes at page 47, and then goes on to define "thunk," "clanker," stuff," "wang," and "smithereens," all to hilarious effect. The logic machine is deployed throughout. There's Writing is Easy!, of course, to which Martin adds a chapter from the vantage point of a pinched writer during a shortage forced to conserve his periods, along with the closing essay, a sort of salutation from the very words of the book as dictated by the spokesword "Underpants." ("Greetings. I'm scummy, and I'd like to mention that you are a lowlife.")
Martin's distinct voice permeates his work, but anyone acquainted with the title essay of Ian Frazier's Coyote v. Acme knows him to be a gifted mimic. Most of Frazier's chapters spin off established conventions: (1) Coyote presents the plaintiff's product liability complaint against the Acme company for "personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering" suffered in the course of Wile E.'s work as a predator; (2) Line 46a is the IRS FAQ sheet explaining the newly-implemented regulation requiring taxpayers to choose between death and life as an assassin (inspired by the tagline to an action movie); and (3) Have You Ever is a standard questionnaire issued to prospective policyholders of an insurer who exclusively services soap opera characters (with item 6 under 'PERSONAL HEALTH' being, "Did you ever emerge from a coma as Tab Hunter?") Coyote's level of funny is up there with Martin, but the strength of its mimicry is also its primary flaw. At some point, reading stonefaced rip-offs of tedious genres grows tiresome. (That said, I can't end without quoting one of Frazier's literal takes on the comment, "she had a laugh that was like brandy by firelight" at page 28: "Slivovitz Old Plum. Lit match in the stuff between subway rails. 'A-hilk a-hilk a har har har hilk hilk hilk hilk hilk hilk hilk hilk.'" Ever so classy.)
Woody Allen comes up last and, surprisingly, very much least in this nontrilogy. As a devotee of Side Effects, Without Feathers, and Woody Allen's standup routines (especially that bit about the moose), I found myself extremely disappointed with the look-at-me narcissism displayed in Mere Anarchy. Not unlike Martin (and what's with these first name comic surnames, Allen, Martin, Frazier?) Allen is a big fan of wordplay, only in Woody's case his love of vocabulary seems to be more about proving his erudition than indulging the joy of neologism or a well-turned phrase. So, in an otherwise rich fish-out-of-water scenario (a nebbish shopping for a high-tech suit), the cavalcade of increasingly ridiculous fabrics is constantly interrupted by obfuscating, unnatural banter such as: "Now, you come home and the ball and chain perceives the subtlest trace of Quelques Fleurs on your tattersall vest. Starting to have the epiphany? Next thing you know, either you're sweating to keep out of alimony jail or the immortal beloved goes ballistic and you wind up like one of those old Weegee photos with a suppurating excavation between the orbs." (page 31)
This is not to criticize fine, fast-talking characters as humorous devices. Snake oil salespeople are a comedic staple; Monty Python loved them (think Eric Idle or John Cleese in various roles), but the joke is reliant in no small part on a foil who finds the patter every bit as confusing as the audience, if not more so. Yet when the rube's utterances are equally purple, as in page 27's "His invidious comparison with the clown's attire lodged in my bosom like a scorpion's tail, and I resolved to invest in a bespoke ensemble the moment my frequent-flier miles swelled to underwrite a trip abroad," then the florid language detracts rather than contributes to the jollity. The verbal tics permeate nearly every paragraph of the book, irrespective of who is speaking… at least up to page 63, at which point I quit on Allen. Nonsense is great when conveyed with a facsimile of sense; it leads to a Lewis Carroll kind of logical satire that pervades so much of Woody's other work. That's the sort of intellectual play I love to read, but here Woody's so busy filtering it all through his Thesaurus that the juice is lost.
Woody Allen's entire output is proof that he could (like Ian Frazier) hysterically render an account book entry if he so chose. I just get the sense that he fails most often when he lets his ego gets in his way. Were he to leaven his work with even a smidge of Steve Martin's delicious humility, there'd be few kinks in his ouerve. After all, a cornerstone rule of comedy has it to get others to laugh, you must first be able to laugh at yourself.
I mean, seriously.
Here's my ranking and synopsis of each of these books:
Steve Martin's Pure Drivel is the funniest. Martin writes mostly as his Jerk character, a hyper-arrogant naïf whose self-assurance is wholly unjustified by his intelligence. So the first three chapters are (1) A Public Apology, about a politician prepping for his latest campaign by publicly acknowledging his past gaffes (a list that gets increasingly more ridiculous)… from prison; (2) Writing is Easy!, a hack's quid erat demonstrandum; and (3) Yes, in My Own Backyard, in which the author explains how he came to conclude that his birdbath was in fact a heretofore undiscovered sculpture by Raphael.
Drivel is driven by wordplay, exhibiting Martin's appreciation of language for the sheer joy of its sound and also for its function as a logic machine. As to the former, there's a delightful chapter dedicated to introducing the sledgehammer to the beginning tool user. "The novice sledgehammerer (from the German sledgehammeramalamadingdong) must be familiar with a few terms," he writes at page 47, and then goes on to define "thunk," "clanker," stuff," "wang," and "smithereens," all to hilarious effect. The logic machine is deployed throughout. There's Writing is Easy!, of course, to which Martin adds a chapter from the vantage point of a pinched writer during a shortage forced to conserve his periods, along with the closing essay, a sort of salutation from the very words of the book as dictated by the spokesword "Underpants." ("Greetings. I'm scummy, and I'd like to mention that you are a lowlife.")
Martin's distinct voice permeates his work, but anyone acquainted with the title essay of Ian Frazier's Coyote v. Acme knows him to be a gifted mimic. Most of Frazier's chapters spin off established conventions: (1) Coyote presents the plaintiff's product liability complaint against the Acme company for "personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering" suffered in the course of Wile E.'s work as a predator; (2) Line 46a is the IRS FAQ sheet explaining the newly-implemented regulation requiring taxpayers to choose between death and life as an assassin (inspired by the tagline to an action movie); and (3) Have You Ever is a standard questionnaire issued to prospective policyholders of an insurer who exclusively services soap opera characters (with item 6 under 'PERSONAL HEALTH' being, "Did you ever emerge from a coma as Tab Hunter?") Coyote's level of funny is up there with Martin, but the strength of its mimicry is also its primary flaw. At some point, reading stonefaced rip-offs of tedious genres grows tiresome. (That said, I can't end without quoting one of Frazier's literal takes on the comment, "she had a laugh that was like brandy by firelight" at page 28: "Slivovitz Old Plum. Lit match in the stuff between subway rails. 'A-hilk a-hilk a har har har hilk hilk hilk hilk hilk hilk hilk hilk.'" Ever so classy.)
Woody Allen comes up last and, surprisingly, very much least in this nontrilogy. As a devotee of Side Effects, Without Feathers, and Woody Allen's standup routines (especially that bit about the moose), I found myself extremely disappointed with the look-at-me narcissism displayed in Mere Anarchy. Not unlike Martin (and what's with these first name comic surnames, Allen, Martin, Frazier?) Allen is a big fan of wordplay, only in Woody's case his love of vocabulary seems to be more about proving his erudition than indulging the joy of neologism or a well-turned phrase. So, in an otherwise rich fish-out-of-water scenario (a nebbish shopping for a high-tech suit), the cavalcade of increasingly ridiculous fabrics is constantly interrupted by obfuscating, unnatural banter such as: "Now, you come home and the ball and chain perceives the subtlest trace of Quelques Fleurs on your tattersall vest. Starting to have the epiphany? Next thing you know, either you're sweating to keep out of alimony jail or the immortal beloved goes ballistic and you wind up like one of those old Weegee photos with a suppurating excavation between the orbs." (page 31)
This is not to criticize fine, fast-talking characters as humorous devices. Snake oil salespeople are a comedic staple; Monty Python loved them (think Eric Idle or John Cleese in various roles), but the joke is reliant in no small part on a foil who finds the patter every bit as confusing as the audience, if not more so. Yet when the rube's utterances are equally purple, as in page 27's "His invidious comparison with the clown's attire lodged in my bosom like a scorpion's tail, and I resolved to invest in a bespoke ensemble the moment my frequent-flier miles swelled to underwrite a trip abroad," then the florid language detracts rather than contributes to the jollity. The verbal tics permeate nearly every paragraph of the book, irrespective of who is speaking… at least up to page 63, at which point I quit on Allen. Nonsense is great when conveyed with a facsimile of sense; it leads to a Lewis Carroll kind of logical satire that pervades so much of Woody's other work. That's the sort of intellectual play I love to read, but here Woody's so busy filtering it all through his Thesaurus that the juice is lost.
Woody Allen's entire output is proof that he could (like Ian Frazier) hysterically render an account book entry if he so chose. I just get the sense that he fails most often when he lets his ego gets in his way. Were he to leaven his work with even a smidge of Steve Martin's delicious humility, there'd be few kinks in his ouerve. After all, a cornerstone rule of comedy has it to get others to laugh, you must first be able to laugh at yourself.
I mean, seriously.
October 28, 2021
I'm not entirely sure who called Coyote v. Acme "hilarious", but holy smokes, did that feel like false advertising to me.
The titular short story/essay in this collection (Ian Frazier's work straddles the line between the two, and it wasn't always clear quite where any given story/essay in Coyote v. Acme fell) was the reason I picked up this book in the first place, as this essay presenting Wile E. Coyote's attorney's opening statement in Mr. Coyote's products-liability suit against the Acme Company has achieved an almost eternal life on the Internet, and, speaking as an attorney myself, the story is in fact very funny. But all too often, Frazier belabors the central gists of any number of the essays in the collection well and truly beyond where he gets the punchline across . . . and then he keeps right on going, ad nauseam.
This is not to say that Frazier's storytelling isn't clever; it is, at least to a point. Some, if not most, of the concepts in Coyote v. Acme do indeed think outside the box—perhaps one of the central hallmarks of wit in general—and Frazier clearly enjoys what he's writing. But there's a fine line between entertaining and smarmy, and as Frazier extends all too many of his essays for sometimes several pages beyond the punchline or conceit (all too frequently, I "got" the central joke only a couple paragraphs in, but Frazier insists! on hammering the reader over the head with that gag over and over and over again), Frazier's cleverness almost feels self-congratulatory.
I get it: I'm distinctly in the minority when it comes to Frazier's humor—he's won literary awards and he's apparently a darling of the New Yorker, after all. But just as Jules Feiffer (particularly in Sick, Sick, Sick, the one collection of Feiffer's that I managed to get through) is decidedly not my brand of humor (and I'm starting to think that my tastes in humor run rather more accessible to the general public, if not altogether lowbrow), neither is Frazier. Coyote v. Acme started out amusing, moved into tiresome, and ended up ragingly disappointing; I desperately wanted to like Coyote v. Acme, but when the author thinks they're clever more than they actually are, there's a problem.
September 7, 2022
Based on the cover, you would assume this book has an amusing premise and would be an enjoyable read. The New York Times guy said the author (notably, not this book, just the author) made him "laugh out loud." The back cover promised 22 "side-splitting glimpses into some oddball corners of the American mind." That was more accurate -- there are 22 of them and most of them are oddball.
I can offer one or two positive comments. The title piece, Coyote v. Acme, is quite accurate as to the dry legalese and very good at capturing in words the physical consequences on Mr. Coyote of the use of the Acme products. The piece about insurance for soap opera characters definitely reflects someone familiar with the subtleties of that form of entertainment (amnesia, emerging from a coma as Tab Hunter, staging own kidnapping, million-dollar estates with underground add-ons like tunnels, mines, or crypts). And the first piece demonstrates that the author was a fan of 80s country music and of Eddie Rabbitt in particular, given the way he outright stole from Rocky Mountain Music for his narrator's background. Finally, the piece about the IRS offering you the choice between dying by the end of the year in hopes of earning a tax break or deducting the cost of being a government hit-man on the people who selected that option does mirror some of the fears recently expressed by the MAGA crowd about the increased funding for IRS agents.
I can offer one or two positive comments. The title piece, Coyote v. Acme, is quite accurate as to the dry legalese and very good at capturing in words the physical consequences on Mr. Coyote of the use of the Acme products. The piece about insurance for soap opera characters definitely reflects someone familiar with the subtleties of that form of entertainment (amnesia, emerging from a coma as Tab Hunter, staging own kidnapping, million-dollar estates with underground add-ons like tunnels, mines, or crypts). And the first piece demonstrates that the author was a fan of 80s country music and of Eddie Rabbitt in particular, given the way he outright stole from Rocky Mountain Music for his narrator's background. Finally, the piece about the IRS offering you the choice between dying by the end of the year in hopes of earning a tax break or deducting the cost of being a government hit-man on the people who selected that option does mirror some of the fears recently expressed by the MAGA crowd about the increased funding for IRS agents.
July 29, 2017
I feel like three and a half stars is the more accurate reflection of my rating. However, I did laugh a lot while reading this slim volume. Also, I picked it up from a thrift store in Tahoe city for less than a dollar. So, for my entertainment value, it was well worth it. Also, I laughed several times. And, also, wished that I could write random 1500 word humor pieces for major American magazines. I would like that job. How do I get that job? What do you mean "what's a magazine?"
Okay. Fine. Millennials rule the world. But, seriously. Pick up an issue of the New Yorker sometime. It's magic to feel the pages in your fingers. To touch the stories. To smear the ink with your greasy, aiolli tarnished fingers. To relish in the sting of the occassional paper cut.
Or follow the links to articles that your more erudite friends post on Facebook. Or watch that video of the cats wearing pumpkin hats. It's nice. And it doesn't ask you to think critically to be able to appreciate it. Then go to brunch. Because it's nice to be able to pay too much for breakfast.
Okay, go on. Get out of here, you scamps. Brunch is calling. And mimosas. Go on.
What? Are you still reading this review? Then maybe you'll enjoy the book. Or maybe you're hoping to get to the link to the video of a seal asking a scuba diver for a belly scratch. The choice is yours.
https://youtu.be/7NjYyniUVP0
Okay. Fine. Millennials rule the world. But, seriously. Pick up an issue of the New Yorker sometime. It's magic to feel the pages in your fingers. To touch the stories. To smear the ink with your greasy, aiolli tarnished fingers. To relish in the sting of the occassional paper cut.
Or follow the links to articles that your more erudite friends post on Facebook. Or watch that video of the cats wearing pumpkin hats. It's nice. And it doesn't ask you to think critically to be able to appreciate it. Then go to brunch. Because it's nice to be able to pay too much for breakfast.
Okay, go on. Get out of here, you scamps. Brunch is calling. And mimosas. Go on.
What? Are you still reading this review? Then maybe you'll enjoy the book. Or maybe you're hoping to get to the link to the video of a seal asking a scuba diver for a belly scratch. The choice is yours.
https://youtu.be/7NjYyniUVP0
October 21, 2023
Rating for Ian Frazier’s short story “Coyote v. Acme” which I read via the New Yorker Fiction podcast. This story is meant to be a satirical humor story. For me personally though it fell flat. The story was narrated by Jonathan Franzen on the podcast and his narration was fine but my issue with the story is with the subject matter. From what I can tell, this story would appeal to two different groups of people. First those who enjoy Looney Tunes cartoons (which I never did) and Lawyers. I understood the basic legal concepts this story brought up but as I am not a lawyer, I just didn’t find the story that amusing I guess this story just isn’t my cup of tea. I’m willing to try other works by Frazier to see if I can connect with them a bit better as I enjoyed his writing style but not the subject matter of this specific story.
December 25, 2017
The humorous essays were mildly amusing, and the best by far was the title one, Coyote v. Acme. I just didn't find most of it as funny as the blurb and cover quotes promised. I don't think I laughed at all, even though it was supposedly "lough out loud" funny. Not even a Stalin chuckle.
The best part was how short the essays were. They didn't drag on and on, they got their point out of the way and ended. The whole book is a pretty quick read, if you want to read it all through, or you can read each essay by itself in small snatches of time.
If you REALLY enjoy satire of literary fiction, you'll probably enjoy this more than I did.
The best part was how short the essays were. They didn't drag on and on, they got their point out of the way and ended. The whole book is a pretty quick read, if you want to read it all through, or you can read each essay by itself in small snatches of time.
If you REALLY enjoy satire of literary fiction, you'll probably enjoy this more than I did.
March 24, 2018
It was hard to figure out how to rate this book of comic short stories. Most of the stories I found to be indifferent, yet the book also contains one of the very funniest stories I've ever read in my life, that is, the title story, Coyote v. Acme. That one I read again and again, every time I need a belly laugh, and I send it to friends who might enjoy it too. The one title story is worth the price of the book.
January 11, 2019
The pieces in this collection are sometimes hilarious, sometimes baffling, but always amusing.
The title piece is, of course, one of the funniest in the book and it was smart to use it as the attention getter. It, along with bits like "Have You Ever," takes a satirical meta look at a recognizable staple of pop culture. Others, like "Line 46a" and "Dial W-H-Y W-O-R-K," take poignant stabs at real life frustrations.
It's sure to make one giggle.
The title piece is, of course, one of the funniest in the book and it was smart to use it as the attention getter. It, along with bits like "Have You Ever," takes a satirical meta look at a recognizable staple of pop culture. Others, like "Line 46a" and "Dial W-H-Y W-O-R-K," take poignant stabs at real life frustrations.
It's sure to make one giggle.
August 31, 2023
Every story could be summed up as someone supremely confident in how clever their 1) pop culture reference was or 2) descent into zaniness was. Of the dozen or so 2-3 page stories I managed to slog through (yes, 2-3 pages and the stories were all slogs), the premise felt stretched in the first couple of sentences and nothing landed.
To those smiling smugly and saying you just didn't get it, please see above, there is nothing beyond that to get it if you don't think the author is clever.
To those smiling smugly and saying you just didn't get it, please see above, there is nothing beyond that to get it if you don't think the author is clever.
June 11, 2019
I honestly understood none of the humor in this book. I think I have a pretty sharp sense of humor, but to this reader, nothing in here was remotely funny. However, I've read a couple of Mr. Frazier's other works, have been impressed, and will continue to read those books of his that I have selected as to-read.
October 7, 2021
Ian Frazier evidently doesn't spend a lot of time in reality (or too much time) and has created a bizarre world of his own. This series of comedic essays only proves my theorem. I thought the Coyote vs. Acme to be the most hilarious, but there were chuckles throughout.
Read
January 11, 2024You need a lot of the right cultural knowledge to get these essays, and if you don't, they'll just be mystifying. I knew enough to appreciate some, but not all of them, so this was, at best, a mixed bag for me.
June 4, 2017
Ian's humor is somewhat New Yorkish - sophisticated and complex. Overall, I prefer Dave Barry, but Ian at the top of his game is really quite good.
November 23, 2018
22 comedic essays that provide glimpses into some of the more obscure areas of the human mind.
June 30, 2020
A collection of vignettes -- supposedly humorous, but I didn't find them all that funny. Didn't fin ish the book.
January 13, 2022
Funny stuff
October 26, 2022
At his best when satirizing the US government and lit crit. A few too many essays were too specific to late-80s culture for me to get the joke. Thoroughly and thoughtfully funny collection of essays.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 81 reviews