Creatively Derivative, or Derivatively Creative?

Thanks to the awesome power of Google (the wonderful website that has transformed stalking from punishable by 1 to 3 in the state pen to a legitimate pasttime), I made a startling discovery today. Despite my conscious attempt to be completely original in every aspect of my life -- I would even wear my pants on my head if not for gross indecency laws and my preference for non-breathing cotton polyblends -- the words "gefilte fish blues" have been used before.

From Curb Your Enthusiasm:

[Larry pretending to be Orthodox Jew to suck up to the guy in charge of organ donation]
Larry: I was in the band, ok. The girls were pretty interested, you know, with the guitar. They liked that.
Ben's daughter: Like a rock band?
Larry: Jewish folk music, Jewish folk songs.
Ben's daughter: Oh, like what songs?
Larry: Um.."Gefilte Fish Blues"...

Suffice it to say, this revelation perturbed me. It was perturbing. The essence of perturbance. (If I think of another variation on the word "perturb" I'll include it in the next post.) Although an IP lawyer friend of mine told me not to worry -- according to him, the Curb reference "doesn't present problems of infringement" (I wonder if he used legalese in case he decides to bill me for this advice) -- my friend forgets two things: 1. Larry David is Jewish; and 2. Larry David (at least the version of himself on television) is bitter. Bitter Jews are the number one cause for the sharp increase in lawsuits over the previous decade. A gentile slips on a banana peel and you've got a chuckle and a bruised ego; a Bitter Jew slips on a banana peel and you've got a fully-funded undergraduate education for his kids.

And a lucrative lawsuit might be coming at just the right time for Larry. According to the tabloids (which I never read, except when I do), Larry is enmeshed in a somewhat contentious divorce at the moment, which means he might need the money for alimony. My parents' divorce forced my father to sell his kidney and move in with his mother; he would have sold both kidneys to avoid doing the latter if he could have. Curb Your Enthusiasm might be an income generator now, but there are only so many times Larry can piss off the entire population of Los Angeles before the shtick wears out its welcome. And I have the feeling Larry has invested his Seinfeld residuals in soup and mansiers. So he's going to need a back-up plan, in case the ex gets greedy, as exes often do. And Laurie's financial independence is dubious, unless Al Gore undertakes a new cause, like saving the iguanas, or stamping out guinea pig illiteracy.

So with that in mind, here are the top five reasons why Larry David should not sue me:

1. I have no money. Ok, I have a little money. I am a corporate attorney after all. But what hasn't already gone to liquor and/or prostitutes has gone to liquored-up prostitutes, or prostitutes selling liquor. Also I have a nasty chocolate chip cookie addiction. I've joined a support group for it, and Cookie Monster -- our group leader -- promises that I can kick the habit, but I have trouble trusting anyone blue and furry.

2. I'm probably Larry's bastard love-child. He's Jewish. So am I. He's bald. I'm on my way. He's straight. Ok, no one's perfect. But if I am his love-child, suing me would be like suing himself, and whatever proceeds he gets will just come back to me, as I'll surely contest the will in court. I am a Bitter Jew, after all.

3. It would be pathetic. How would that look in the papers? "Larry David Sues Cookie-Addicted Nymphomanic Attorney For Use Of A Relatively Idiotic Punchline." It's not like I misappropriated "yada yada yada" or "not that there's anything wrong with that." Let's face it -- what the hell does "Gefilte Fish Blues" even mean? I should sue Larry for putting such a ridiculous phrase in my subconscious.

4. I came up with the idea all on my own. Originally the blog's title was "If This Gefilte Fish Could Talk," except that was way too long of a name for a website. Plus I thought it might inspire some bad acid trips, which would alienate my target audience, jews in rehab.

5. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, isn't blatant stealing, like, better?

But perhaps the most persuasive reason for not suing me is that there is no such thing as true originality anymore. There are 6 billion people on this planet, each one with a various amount of thoughts per day, ranging from the most intellectual (Stephen Hawking, the inventor of fruit roll-ups), to the least (certain politicians, whoever green-lighted Ishtar). That's trillions and trillions of thoughts everyday. The words "gefilte fish blues" must have been thought of or written down by someone else in the recent past. Should that person be allowed to sue me also? How about if they misspelled "gefilte"? My IP lawyer friend suggested I register the domain names "www.gefiltahfishblues.com" and "www.gahfiltahfishblues.com" to prevent cybersquatters (another sign that he's going to bill me). Or what if the original thought came from a gentile? Should gentiles be allowed to copyright Jewish humor? Is that what my grandmother survived the camps for?

The sad truth is, most creative work is just filler. Writers bide their time until they finally come up with something truly brilliant. Usually they never do, but by then the readers are so ashamed of wasting their time reading complete crap when they should have been doing something much more productive -- like learning a new language, or breast-feeding -- that they actually convince themselves that what they just read was in fact both funny and original.

And you're no exception. You spent ten seconds reading my various takes on the word "perturbed" when you could have been doing today's New York Times Crossword puzzle. You could have made yourself a better person in those ten seconds -- imagine what you could have done in the time it took you to read this whole blog entry. In the paraphrased words of Elizabeth Taylor, what a waste.

And if Larry does sue me, I will be perturbified.