Now Where Will We Go to Feed Our Tabloid Hunger?

You are anxious, jittery, irritable. You don’t know how to fill your time, what to talk about at dinner parties, how to wean yourself from tabloid TV. You try switching to decaf: nothing.

Another O.J. Simpson trial has all but come to an end.

How will you fill the post-verdict void?

Or, as one paper put it in a Sunday headline: “Simpson Trial: Closure, but for Whom?”

Exactly.

Rest assured, however, you have come to the right place.

We can get through this together. After all, we’ve done it once before.

Let’s be rational: This trial was not nearly as long as the first. Nor was it televised. Theoretically, no unhealthy attachments should have developed.

And yet, they did.

So forget being rational. This trial was amazing. This time, the defendant took the stand. His testimony was incredible: He denied owning the shoes. They found pictures of the shoes. Then he did not recall owning the shoes. He took responsibility for his wife’s bruised face. Then he denied striking his wife’s face.

This trial, in many ways as dramatic as the grueling, race-based first, seeped into many lives--it may not have been broadcast live, but it was a staple of evening news, morning papers and round-the-clock talk radio.

You may have resisted at first. But then, quite simply, you got used to it. It became a part of your life.

And now it is over.

No more gratuitous gotta-have-something-to-illustrate-this-segment shots of the defendant striding into the Santa Monica courthouse, limping ever so dramatically on days when his immense physical strength was a topic of courtroom testimony.

No more poignant images of the pain-tightened face of Fred Goldman as he walks to court, none of Kim Goldman nervously torturing her hair with her hands.

Goodbye, Daniel Petrocelli.

Au revoir, Robert Baker.

Hasta la vista, Laurie Levenson, Robert Pugsley and Jeffrey Toobin.

And condolences, truckloads of them, to Geraldo Rivera and Charles Grodin. How in heaven’s name will these people fill their daily shows?

*

I predict rough sailing for the vast fleet of O.J. Simpson trial-o-philes. And I am not alone.

“We should establish a 12-step program, or survivors groups,” says Pugsley, a professor at Southwestern University’s School of Law. For 2 1/2 years, Pugsley has carried a beeper--”on call, just like a taxicab”--for television programs, radio shows, newspaper reporters in need of Simpson-related punditry. “People have gotten drunk listening to me in Irish pubs and Bulgarian restaurants,” says the professor, a regular O.J. commentator on the internationally broadcast Sky News.

“I’ll be very happy when it’s over,” says Pugsley, but one detects a certain wistfulness in his tone. “Well,” he admits, “I think there might be a feeling like, ‘Why isn’t the phone ringing anymore?’ ”

To keep the pundits from becoming reclusive, we might launch a petition drive aimed at getting shoemaker Bruno Magli to file suit against O.J. Simpson. Couldn’t the firm claim he adversely affected business by using the adjective “ugly ass” to describe the tasteful suede boot worn by the murderer?

Moreover, since practically every player in the first trial ended up with a book contract, a TV movie deal, a television or radio talk show, or a permanent spot on the big bucks lecture circuit, why stop there? In this age of media synergy, why not other creative outlets for Simpson addiction?

Would reruns of the criminal trial be far-fetched? If cable television executives can resurrect “The Munsters” and “I Dream of Jeannie,” if “Married . . . With Children” is the longest-running sitcom on TV, who could knock the People vs. Orenthal James Simpson as tacky TV?

And while we’re at it, why not a spinoff sitcom about the wacky antics of big-city criminologists: Call it “How About That, Mr. Fung?”

*

In the end, we’ll probably have to look elsewhere to fill the void left by the conclusion of the Simpson civil trial.

There was a brief glimmer of hope Monday, when Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss appeared in court. It seemed her state pandering and drug case was headed for a juicy retrial. Alas, hopes may be dashed with the news that Ms. Fleiss hopes to cut a deal to serve concurrent time on the state charges and federal income tax evasion charges.

And, of course, there is the prospect of court activity in relation to Brian “Kato” Kaelin’s lawsuit against the man who penned “Kato Kaelin: The Whole Truth.” Don’t hold your breath for a big emotional payoff here, however.

Simpson addicts will have to sit tight, waiting for the next extraordinary courtroom drama. Will it revolve around the mysterious murder of Ennis Cosby? The gruesome death of little Colorado beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey?

Time--and the tabloids--will tell.

* Robin Abcarian’s column appears on Wednesdays.