Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!kre From: kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson's June reviews Message-ID: <9003@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 09:19:39 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9003 Posted: Fri Jul 12 09:19:39 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:42:59 EDT References: <8827@ucbvax.ARPA> <3200003@ccvaxa> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 84 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