kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) (07/12/85)
In article <3200003@ccvaxa>, preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > > > For the amusement of many of you, and I hope the gross embarassment of > > others, here is a list of the reviews posted by Kelvin Thompson in the > > past month or so, and the followups they generated. > ---------- > What wit is there in posting something that makes you appear to be > an idiot? I suspect none. I'm also not sure who is supposed to have done this. I guess that you meant Kelvin Thompson, but maybe you meant me?? I wasn't trying to be witty (I've always failed when I have tried) - whether my posting made me appear to be an idiot I will leave for others to judge (if it did, then it would probably just be an accurate reflection). K.T.'s reviews would have only made him appear to be an idiot to other idiots. > There are enough seriously idiotic things posted on the > net that we cannot be expected to recognize a posting as satirical > when all it appears to be is stupid. Perhaps not. But nor does everyone have to post followups claiming "What kind of fool are you, have you never heard of the book 1984", or "It was a fantasy, idiot", or similar. The best thing to do with stupidity is ignore it. If it was real stupidity, it will just go away. If it turns out to be satire (good, bad or indifferent) then you haven't made a public fool of yourself. If you just have to make it clear that you know better then the poster of an article, then tell him by mail. > Viewed as humor, the reviews > were reasonably amusing -- if they had been posted in a fashion that > made their humorous intent obvious (as, for example, if they had > been posted as a group or marked with the traditional :-)) a lot of > us would have been amused and appreciative. Posting them in the > guise of serious reviews just made the author appear stupid. Satire doesn't work if it is obvious that you are trying to be funny. To be really good it has to be VERY subtle. And it has to appear to be entirely serious. > We > all knew the reviews COULD be parodies, but I don't think anyone > should be embarassed at not recognizing them as such. [Well, actually, > everybody should have recognized the Star Wars review as parody, but > I'm willing to believe there are people who haven;t read 1984]. I find it a little hard to believe that anyone who thought that K.T's reviews might be parodies, or satirical, would have posted one of those absurd followups. (Of course, there was the claim that the followups were satire too ... Anyone is free to believe that if they want) I am sure that there are people who haven't read 1984, but do you really believe that there is anyone who has never even heard of it?? > I've always thought that playing on gullibility was a pretty juvenile > and cruel form of humor: laughing at someone for trusting you > doesn't say much for your sensitivity. This might be a valid criticism of my article. But I wasn't trying to laugh at people. I was just trying to get people to keep their fingers off the 'f' key. I didn't gain the impression that K.T was laughing at anyone in his articles. Had he posted an article of the form "Ha Ha - I was just joking, you idiots" (perhaps just like mine) then perhaps you would be right. His articles were just good satire (though they deteriorated a little as time went on, my guess is that K.T was frustrated that people weren't recognising his "reviews" for what they were, and was trying to make it more obvious), it was only the followups that would caused anyone to laugh at anyone else (readers laughing at the posters). Robert Elz
hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) (07/12/85)
>What wit is there in posting something that makes you appear to be >an idiot? There are enough seriously idiotic things posted on the >net that we cannot be expected to recognize a posting as satirical >when all it appears to be is stupid. Viewed as humor, the reviews >were reasonably amusing -- if they had been posted in a fashion that >made their humorous intent obvious (as, for example, if they had >been posted as a group or marked with the traditional :-)) a lot of >us would have been amused and appreciative. Posting them in the >guise of serious reviews just made the author appear stupid. [Mutter mutter curse...] The art of satire has been around for slightly longer than Usenet; perhaps you have read some Leacock or Twain. While I have certainly not read all of either of these gentlemen's works, I cannot recall ever having seen a smiley-face symbol in anything they wrote. Perhaps in the days when people could spell, the written version of a laugh-track was not considered to be necessary. Perhaps it still isn't. In my own arrogant way, I feel that a reader who cannot recognize humour is not worth communicating with. You may fire when your terminals bear... -- John Hogg Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!hogg
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (07/18/85)
In article <9003@ucbvax.ARPA> kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) writes: > >K.T.'s reviews would have only made him appear to be an >idiot to other idiots. > Then I must be an idiot, because I think K. T. is an idiot. >> There are enough seriously idiotic things posted on the >> net that we cannot be expected to recognize a posting as satirical >> when all it appears to be is stupid. > >The best thing to do with stupidity is ignore it. If it >was real stupidity, it will just go away. If it turns out >to be satire (good, bad or indifferent) then you haven't >made a public fool of yourself. > I disagree. The best thing to do with stupidity (or, more precisely, ignorance) is educate it. Ignoring it does no one any good. If a person is more worried about taking a chance on looking foolish than he is about preventing errors from going unchecked, then that it his problem. >If you just have to make it clear that you know better then >the poster of an article, then tell him by mail. > Precisely what I did on the "1984" review. I also asked him if he was serious. No response. When his review of "My New Partner" came out, he was talking about a film which 95% (or more) of the net would never see, and about an issue (the French government's support of the French film industry) which I suspect very few net people have spent their time reading up on. If no one said anything, some people who know little about French cinema would, thanks to KT, harbor a totally false impression of how it operates. His "Star Wars" review struck me as his attempt to say to all of us, "Hey, you guys are really stupid. I was just putting you on. Yuk, yuk, yuk." (Incidentally, if any of you want to make sure I don't read your postings, don't answer the mail I send you when it is obvious I want a response. Works every time.) >Satire doesn't work if it is obvious that you are trying to be >funny. To be really good it has to be VERY subtle. And it >has to appear to be entirely serious. On the contrary, most effective, famous satires are broad. For example, "Gulliver's Travels", "The Loved One", and "Bored of the Rings". A satire often cloths itself in the garments of seriousness, but if satire is too subtle it isn't satire, and it's vital that its seriousness be transparent to the reader. Otherwise, the audience doesn't recognize that you are poking fun at the chosen subject, and the satire's purpose is completely lost. KT seems to be using satire as a means of proving to himself his superiority, not revealing the pretensions and foibles of others. >I didn't gain the impression that K.T was laughing at anyone >in his articles. I did. >His articles were >just good satire ... >it was only the followups that would caused anyone to >laugh at anyone else (readers laughing at the posters). > I don't think his articles were good satires. I looked at them and said, "Well, if I assume he isn't serious, does this sound really funny?" The answer was no. Hence, I regard them as poor satires. Satire is, by its nature, cruel. Satires make fun of people. Their saving grace is that, well used, they can make fun of things which deserve to be ridiculed. I don't think KT uses them well. -- Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (07/24/85)
Elz: The best thing to do with stupidity is ignore it. Reiher: I disagree. The best thing to do with stupidity (or, more precisely, ignorance) is educate it. Ignoring it does no one any good. ... Elz: ... tell him by mail. Reiher: Precisely what I did on the "1984" review. I also asked him if he was serious. No response. When his review of "My New Partner" came out, he was talking about a film which 95% (or more) of the net would never see, ... Right on, Mr. Reiher. (I also mailed to him on "1984", by the way). And what this 95% means is that the "satirical" review of "My New Partner" would be quite likely to be the ONLY review posted, and therefore many people would form their opinion of the movie based on it. So KT did a disservice to the net for that reason, because what he said, as always, was that "this is a very bad movie." Which it isn't. Or at least, not in my opinion, and I think there are lots of others who would agree. On top of that, of course, there is his responsibility for being the cause of large amounts of flamage from intemperate posters (who don't seem to be able to tell "r" from "f" :-)). Freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell "open fire" in a crowded theater review. I think it's time we had a "satirical review" of KT. I have the first sentence all ready: "This is a very bad reviewer." Anyone want to take it from there? Mark Brader P.S. I'm aware that there was another serious review posted besides mine and that that reviewer didn't like the movie. Doesn't affect my point. I think he was unusually sensitive to what bothered him.
dll@usl.UUCP (David Landskov) (07/30/85)
Kelvin's 1984 review was too believable. He hit his stride after
that, and it was fun for a brief time reading all the flames that
didn't catch on. But the net can't stand much of this kind of
misuse. Add a :-) to the subject. Once is enough.
_My_New_Partner_ is a very enjoyable comedy, as everyone should have
guessed since Kelvin bothered to review it. I recommend it for a
wide audience, including people who would not normally go to a French
movie. (3.5/4)
--
----
David Landskov
University of Lowell, Lowell MA
Currently at {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!dll
But whatever happened to stories in the movies?