Because of the many, many e-mails I received in response to last week’s column, today I thought I’d revisit the subject of Conan O’Brien’s overrated reputation – to clarify, to enlighten and to rag on him one more time.

I appreciate the affection so many of you have for Conan – every generation has its icons, and clearly that is what the “Late Night” host has become. In reviewing the loads of criticism directed toward my column, however, it seems that some of the major points I attempted to make were largely missed. I will assume that was a failing on my part, not yours.

(Then again, you are Conan fans, so picking up on subtlety may not be your strongest suit.)

First, my beef is not with the peripheral elements of Conan’s show, but with his ability as a host and his wit. In a letter published in the “Your Views” section of The Lantern, OSU alumnus Brian E. Hayes sang Conan’s praises, asking: “Who can forget Oldy Olsen, Pimp-Bot or the Masturbating Bear? Certainly no one with a sense of humor.”

With the exception of Oldy Olsen – who was never funny – many of the program’s peripheral characters are hysterical. But credit for this should be directed at Conan’s writing team, not Conan. Moreover, all shows in the late-night comedy genre succeed or fail not on the strength of a four-minute bit, but rather the enduring charisma of the host. Neither Hayes nor anyone else writing in last week credibly articulated what it was about Conan – as a comic, an interviewer, etc. – that justifies his popularity among young viewers.

Also, most of you seemed to object to the comparison I made between Conan and David Letterman, who hosted NBC’s “Late Night” program for 11 brilliant seasons until Conan took over in 1993. “They are completely different personalities representing different age demographics,” wrote one reader. Others took the point further, complaining that Letterman has begun to “phone-in” his work.

Never in my column did I assert that Letterman is still a brilliant comedian. I was comparing Conan to Letterman in his prime – the period between the mid-’80s and mid-’90s when Dave really hit his stride. I’m sorry, but using that lofty standard, Conan sucks harder than the Suck-o-lux at the beginning of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” (Fans of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” will note that, just like Conan, the Suck-o-lux not only sucks, it blows.)

Most of the people who wrote in seem to have no familiarity with Letterman’s old show, or possibly any other program which aired before they were old enough to be aware of it. That kind of familiarity would require some attempt at understanding the world outside of one’s immediate experience, instead of relying on the marketing machine designed to meet the newest whim and taste.

And that’s really the point I was trying to make with the first column.

When “The Matrix: Reloaded” beat the all-time box office record for an opening weekend, the press reacted with so much enthusiasm, you’d think the “Matrix” series was among the greatest stories ever committed to film. But its success is the product of a young audience unaware of the fact that countless artists – from author Arthur C. Clark to Alfred Hitchcock – have told the same story, only better. Conan’s popularity speaks to the same point.

In the letters I received, many observed that “at least Conan is better than Jay Leno,” and that’s true enough. But considering the atrocious state of today’s talk shows – as well as the fact that the once-vaunted “Tonight Show” represents the pits of the current crop – isn’t Conan’s superiority to Leno beside the point? Shouldn’t our standards be higher?

In future decades, Conan won’t be judged against a once-great misanthrope and an opportunistic hack. His talent will have to stand up to not only Letterman in his prime, but Johnny Carson, Steve Allen and Jon Stewart in theirs. He’ll be eaten alive.

Jordan Gentile is a senior in journalism. Hate mail can be sent to [email protected].