Why I don't want Ted Rall speaking for my generation.

Having a conversation with Ted Rall--the disaffected, thirtysomething, nationally syndicated writer/cartoonist--is almost as circular, frustrating and vaguely unsatisfying as reading his new book, Revenge of the Latchkey Kids.

It''s a lot like many of the conversations I''ve had with my fellow left-leaning Generation X compatriots over coffee or beers, which start with anger over a personal slight or frustration, unfold into passionate denunciations of the ways things are and the people in control as others nod in affirmation, then usually trail off into unfocused calls for unspecified change.

To be sure, Rall is a likable, well-read individual, with some keen insights and a wry sense of humor that have taken him from corporate cog to homeless slacker to six-figure social commentator in a relatively short time. His comics are often hilarious.

And I basically agree with many of Rall''s comments and criticisms of a modern world controlled, exploited and fundamentally mismanaged by the older generation, and share his feeling of powerlessness to affect any meaningful change.

Yet, I can''t say that I enjoy wallowing in this muck with Rall, especially when the pervasive cynicism, hopelessness and lack of solutions leads to his conclusion that we''re all just screwed, period. It''s just too depressing, or seems too trite.

Revenge of the Latchkey Kids combines the biting cartoons that have won him such acclaim--often with evil two-dimensional CEOs oppressing the masses and/or suffering violent deaths--with a text of Rall''s world view, playing off the cartoons'' dominant themes of corporate greed and disintegrating social and political structures.

Much of Rall''s hyperbolized analyses center on his personal experiences, including unsuccessful experiences trying to get ahead in the corporate world and growing up with an absent father

It reads at times like the venting of personal vendettas, a kind of cry for help that could only come from intensive psychotherapy. In fact, most of his world view comes from rampant stereotyping based on isolated experiences.

"Whatever is true about me must apply to everyone under 35, right?" Rall muses at one point in the book, a comment that grew to seem less like a joke to me, and more like the basis for the entire book.

For example, take Rall''s chapter called "To Hell With Father''s Day," which includes these gems, "Children of divorce never accept what has happened to them. After all, nothing could be more unfair than to be born into an imploding family;" "Most divorced men have almost nothing to do with the upbringing of their children" and "Now that most of us don''t have fathers anymore, it makes no more sense to celebrate dads than to devote days to haberdashers, stonemasons, or any other relics of a long-dead past."

OK, I thought, maybe he''s just trying to be funny. But that myth was shattered by Rall when I asked what was more important to him, being funny or thought-provoking.

"Being funny is absolutely not important at all. I don''t care if I''m funny or not. Half of the cartoons or essays people tell me are funny, I''m like, "Really?" I''m just being myself," he says.

Oh, to be paid big bucks for just being yourself. Rall is currently trying to make the transition from cartoonist to writer (because, says the man who rants against money-worship, cartooning doesn''t pay well enough). In fact, Rall says he originally submitted his book as text only. The publisher, however, wanted the cartoons--big surprise!

In fact, at times the meandering copy seems to simply be filling space between the cartoons, coming off as the stream-of-consciousness ramblings of someone who seems to be in the middle of thinking through a problem, which is sometimes interesting to read, but ultimately unsatisfying. I kept wanting him to finish his thought, and wondering what his point was.

Rall admits that his logic is sometimes circular and often contradictory on many issues, but sees that as an inevitable byproduct of an intellectually honest approach.

"I''m of two minds on a lot of issues," Rall says. "I believe in shades of gray. I love doing stuff against corporate CEOs because they''re easy, they''re just evil people, they deserve to be murdered and killed, so it''s really easy and I do a lot of those kinds of cartoons, but on most issues, I don''t feel that way. Like on abortion, I really do believe life begins at conception. I took biology, it''s true. At the same same, I think women ought to have the right to murder their unborn babies. So where do I fit in the paradigm? So you go around in circles a lot of times."

Also a syndicated columnist, and writer for POV magazine>, Rall is trying to put his views out to a larger and larger audience. The prospect that he is becoming a voice for my generation scares the crap out of me and maybe that''s why I feel a need to be so hard on him now.

After our phone conversation, I wanted to give Rall a break, to talk mostly about the high points in the book, of which there are some. But then I went to his website at www.rall.com and read some of his columns.

His most recent columns include rehashes of President Clinton''s libido-induced political problems, and one column about drugs that I found particularly irksome.

It involved a college roommate of his named Chris, who is presented as a smart guy who was able to compartmentalize his daily pot smoking and remain a success. Then, both Chris and Rall flunked out of school at the same time (casting doubt on his initial presentation of Chris), got an apartment together, and then we watch Chris become a crackhead caricature: robbing old ladies, dealers beating on the door, crack vials strewn around the apartment.

Finally, at the end of the column, Rall is hanging out with some cartoonist friends: "The mood was relaxed and someone lit up a joint. But when it got to me, I passed it on to the next guy. Chris couldn''t handle this crap, and I never was as smart as Chris."

At least this little parable had a point, I think, albeit a poorly made one that would probably be rejected even by the National Institute on Drug Abuse as just too condescending and silly. Most of his discussions just seem to go around in circles.

My advice, stick to the cartoons, Ted.