An article in the Chicago Trib by Steve Johnson seeks to determine if Dane Cook is worthy of forgiveness.

The “crimes” he’s committed are only mentioned in passing. There’s testimony from Paul Provenza (and exculpatory, if somewhat negative, evidence provided by Doug Stanhope), and a quote from expert witness Bert Haas. Says Provenza:

“I caught a couple of Dane Cook shows at the Laugh Factory in Los Angeles, and he was fantastic,” says the comic, director of “The Artistocrats,” a film about the craft of comedy. “I specifically went to see him because I had heard from some critical voices that he had really made an effort to grow.”

Provenza speculates that it may be a desire for respect, or maybe a maturity that came with some family problems: In addition to losing his parents, Cook’s half-brother, who helped manage the comic’s career, was recently arrested on charges of allegedly stealing millions from him.

Or it may be that professional jealousy clouded everyone’s vision from the get-go and Cook’s “evolution” is illusory. Perhaps there was always some merit to his onstage antics, his material, his construction, his methods– it was just that the large following led some to believe that Cook had gained “an audience that he hasn’t yet deserved.” Those are Johnson’s words. They are offered as a legitimate gripe. And they’re attributed to Cook’s fellow (jealous) colleagues. We maintain that an audience, no matter how big– or how small, are never deserved… they just are.

Stanhope, in a characteristic moment of brutal honesty, says, “I don’t hate Dane Cook. I hate the people that laugh at Dane Cook.” It could be argued that this displacement that Stanhope admits to is merely a fancy way of restating Provenza’s critique– that Cook, “did all the work to get this audience and neglected the reason that one should have an audience.” (Whatever that means.)

It reminds us of the folks who snidely dismiss the folks who are caught on camera laughing unapologetically at Larry The Cable Guy, (the much derided “white frat boys”). It brings to mind the folks who cited Andrew “Dice” Clay‘s macho Long Island mooks and midriffs who packed arenas in the 1980s as some sort of sign that the culture was heading down the toilet and that, somehow, Clay’s ascendancy was the reason that Bill Hicks wasn’t a household name.

Could not the same be said of Steve Martin‘s ascension to the comedy throne in the 1970’s? We’re sure there were people– colleagues and critics– who felt that Martin didn’t “deserve” his notoriety.

This isn’t a zero-sum game– a comic who gains a vast army of followers doesn’t “take those fans away” from a struggling but brilliant comic who toils in obscurity.

And now, Cook begins his “rehab”/”apology” tour. Of course to his fans, he’s never had to apologize for anything. This article is kind of bizarre. Exactly who is it for? If they really felt that way, why didn’t they just ignore Cook and continue to do so? Are they hoping to be a part of his rebirth? Is this some sort of public comedy intervention? Will they now all be able to take some credit if he eventualy becomes part of the comedy pantheon?

The underlying story: Cook is developing and maturing. Of course Cook is developing and growing– that’s what comics (good comics) do. But a good portion of Cook’s early years took place on Comedy Central and in front of 20,000 fans at the Fleet Center. (And Cook, more than anyone else, seemed as baffled and as humbled by his seeming “overnight success” as anyone.)

His aw shucks demeanor in countless interviews (and in his communication with his fans via his website) may have all been an act, but if it was, it was a damn good one– and an eye-popping formula for success. But in our dealings with him (admittedly few and via email), he’s been polite, genuine and humble.

It seems his only “crime” though– the one that overshadows all the others, real or imagined– was his rapid and wild success.

Thanks to Vince Vieceli for the tip.