But my friends, we can't be complacent in merely figging at Mister Long for his narrow-headed view on what makes good literature. Even now other "journalists" for major glossy "periodicals" are spreading lies masquerading as opinion, horrible blind-eyed views that challenge the beliefs we hold to be true and self-evident. Take a big steaming gander at this article from the November issue of GQ:
Now, no doubt you're saying "What's the matter, little bull!" (And at this point you would bend over to give me a friendly reassuring pat on the head, possibly accompanied by a cherry popsicle.) "Why, that headline is right! Superman II didn't suck at all! It was one of the best superhero movies of its time! The headline is right! And stop dripping cherry juice on my brand-new shoes!"
Well, to you i would look up and say "You're wrong!! Read the rest of the article! He is saying that Superman II sucked until now." Heresy! How can you say the movie that gave us Superman punching out Phantom Zone criminals in Metropolis's Times Square (golly, they have one of those in every city, don't they?) "sucks"? Take that back, Mister Mickey Rapkin! Superman II was not a "campy mess" or "a crappy sequel." Sure, I'm eager as anyone is to slide that brand-new Richard Donner cut DVD in and watch the alternate version of the movie. But that film, which has brought a lot of delight, joy, and fun to little stuffed Superman fan me (and I know I'm not the only one!) did not suck!
But then what should I expect from a magazine that in the same issue takes not one but two gratitious shots at bullkind?:
So, in conclusion, bite me, GQ. Had I actually subscribed to your fashion-laden fishwrap instead of receiving it free in subscription because Cargo went belly-up, I would demand my money back for your yellow journalism that not only slurs the Last Son of Krypton but your Bovine-American readers. I will instead be purchasing Esquire.
Except when they feature those leather jacket fashion spreads.