I think about comedy a lot.

<Lore> You know, I'm not sure I "get" Something Awful.
<Lore> That makes me feel like some fifty-year-old codger who berates teenagers for listening to "rocker and roller" songs.
<zompist> ya big unhip swede!
<Lore> I'm reading a Lord of the Rings review which is intentionally full of mistakes.
<Lore> The intent of which is to goad people into sending angry e-mail, which is then posted on the site, and the author berated for being stupid and having no life.
<Lore> The review itself is kind of funny, like the movie reviews the Onion used to do by an old guy who couldn't remember the title.
<Lore> The flame posting thing, however, makes no sense to me.
<Lore> To begin with, you don't need to make stuff up to get flamed.
<Lore> You can post a perfectly reasonable, accurate, and articulate movie reviews and get flamed by people who disagree with you.
<Lore> Secondly, it seems odd to introduce mistakes and then call people stupid for pointing out mistakes.
<Lore> "You know the difference between 'they're' and 'their'! You moron!"
<Lore> Thirdly, it seems strange to post a facetious review about a movie you haven't seen, and then accuse those responding to it of not having a life.
<Lore> It seems to me that lives could be handed out all around.
<mdxi> i thought it was quite funny, myself
<Lore> So what am I missing?
<Lore> I mean, I get people correcting my typos all the time. Are those people morons? Or are you only a moron if you correct intentional typos?
<Lore> Eh. I'm probably overthinking it.
<Lore> Takes all kinds and all that.
<zompist> lore, you're probably overthinking it
<Lore> Actually, I probably just doesn't tickle my amusement femur, and I'm trying to justify it.
<zompist> my guess without seeing the thing: 1) they thought it was funny to write a review of a movie they hadn't seen. 2) not getting the joke, people write in to complain. 3) they make fun of this.
<SeanQ> think of the review as a flame itself, of those who take the movie too seriously
<SeanQ> flame as in 'designed only to get a rise out of someone'
<zompist> and making fun of people who write in is always funny
<zompist> (reference to sam henderson's "always funny" riffs there)
<Lore> Eh.
<Lore> Haven't seen/read that.
<Lore> I dunno. Just doesn't work for me, I guess.
<mdxi> one assumes, then, that somethingawful in general doesn't work for you
<mdxi> because that's their whole raison d'etre. mocking various flavors of stupid people
<mdxi> usually by creating fake stupid people
<mdxi> (jefk!!!, bernard crabs, cliff yablonsky, et al.)
<Lore> Well, not precisely.
<Lore> I guess one problem I'm having with it is that many of the stupid people being made fun of in the review things don't strike me as particularly stupid. If anything, they're demonstrating a certain amount of knowledge, albeit sometimes trivial.
<Lore> The effect to me ends up being something like: "Dear Sirs, In your recent article you mispelled the word "tournament." Yours, A. Reader <--- WHOO HOO HA HA WHAT A MORON HE DIDN'T REALIZE WE DID IT ON PURPOSE I BET HE'S FAT TOO!"
<CrazyClimber> heheh
<Lore> Similarly, the ones where they say "get a life" end up sounding to me like "WHOO HOO HA HA HE TOOK FIVE MINUTES TO WRITE US ABOUT AN ARTICLE WE SPENT AN HOUR PUTTING TOGETHER TO TRICK PEOPLE INTO WRITING US HE HAS TOO MUCH FREE TIME!"
<zompist> well, that's not my cup of tea, but otoh correcting factual or spelling errors on a humor website seems pretty stupid and geeky.
<zompist> people write in to dave barry to complain that you can't actually throw a baseball at 900 mph. they're perfectly right, but...
<Lore> The overall effect is that of sucking off a horse, watching passersby saying "Eew!" and "Disgusting!" and then jumping up and saying "HA I FOOLED YOU ALL! I DIDN'T ENJOY THAT!"
<mdxi> i would agree if it were at that level, but it wasn't. ht epeople being mocked were clearly raving fanboi zealots who were so wound up in defending the honor of tolkien and hobbit-fuckers everywhere that they sent in lenghty, hyperpedantic flames in response to a fake movie review
<mdxi> which noted that it was a fake
<Lore> That noted it was fake on a different page.
<Lore> And I appreciate having my spelling corrected.
<mdxi> it wasn't like "you misspelled 'tournament'" it was like "YOU DUMB SHIT IT'S ORC NOT ORK YOUR FUCKING RETARD I BET YOU FUCK YUOR SISTER"
<Lore> I think I'd like it better if more of the flames were like that.
<Lore> For instance, the letter at the bottom of http://www.somethingawful.com/article.php?id=348. Okay, the guy's being a bit of a dick, but that's offset in my perception by two factors: First, that he's right about the errors in the article. Secondly, that his namecalling and obsession seems to be maybe a twentieth of SA's namecalling and obsession.
<Lore> I mean, the people writing in are making one major mistake: they don't know that SA is a humor site.
<Lore> And I get mail like that myself. Something makes the mistake of thinking that I'm seriously discussing Star Wars or whatever.
<Lore> Which might be the reason I don't like it much. I'm playing the home game.
<Lore> So, to continue my admittedly flawed analogy, the effect to me is along the lines of "HEY YOU CALL PEOPLE NAMES YOU COCKSUCKING FAT FAGGOT!"
<Lore> It's like Usenet on the Web.
<zompist> eh. now that i've seen it, i'd say sa is rather heavy-handed, but also that they're worth about 20% of the mental effort you've expended on them already
<Lore> I consider it research. I think about comedy a lot.
<Lore> When something is more popular among other people than it is to me, or less so, I like to try and understand why.
<Lore> I like to think it helps me mature as an artist.
<Lore> Actually, that's how Brunching started. When I decided to put up a humor site, the first thing I did was look through other humor sites to see what worked for me and what didn't.
<zompist> ah. well, more power to you... i don't think my mind works that way.
<Lore> I can understand why it wouldn't be terribly interesting to others. Killing the frog and all that.
<zompist> e.g., i like creating fantasy worlds, and if anything i try to avoid reading much fantasy. i prefer reading history or science as research.
<Lore> Interesting.
<Lore> Fantasy would probably be better if more people did that.
<zompist> i know it's counter to the writerly advice you see sometimes... "read every major and minor work ever written in your field!"
<Lore> I can see it having both positive and negative effects.
<zompist> as a dfc editor, i can see where *that* comes from... people thinking their bright idea is the wackiest zaniest ever, when actually it's been done 1000 times.
<Lore> On one hand, it keeps you from just re-writing Tolkien for the 8,232nd time.
<zompist> yah, and on the other hand, it may lead you into writing "planet of the apes"
<Lore> On the other hand, like you just said, I think most people would be surprised how often their "incredible original idea" is something that's been done a hundred times.
<Lore> You could end up making a book about a small humanoid creature who has a magical ring that seems harmless but is actually a powerful magic item that must be destroyed.
<Lore> Do you know the most common SF magazine submission?
<zompist> is that rhetorical?
<Lore> No, I thought you might have read it somewhere.
<zompist> i've seen lists... stuff like "astronauts discover adam & eve in space"
<Lore> I read somewhere, I forget where, that every so often they'll get a story about a crash landing on a lush, verdant planet, where only two people survive and their names end up being Adam and Eve.
<zompist> heh, that's the one
<zompist> i remember that from analog's rejection letter. i take that as the equivalent of the dfc difficult zone.
<Lore> In fact, I once saw a short-short by Ellison that ended something like "I'm Adam. What's your name?" "Helga."
<Lore> What'd they reject?
<zompist> oh, half a dozen EXCELLENT MIND-BLOWING STORIES
<Lore> What happened to them?
<Lore> The stories, not Analog.
<zompist> one of them is on my site... the others are in a file folder
<Lore> Analog is still appearing in very, very well-stocked bookstores, I understand.
<Lore> I'll have to check out the one on your site.
<Lore> And break into your home and read the others.
<zompist> heh, sure
<Lore> Hrm.
<Lore> So I'm still, against all odds, thinking about SA, and I suddenly realize that I don't really like any of that sort of humor. Crank call humor, Tom Green acting like an idiot in public and therefore getting treated like an idiot.
<Lore> So it's probably just my own deal.
<zompist> i think i said it's not my cup of tea
<zompist> sounds like quintessential brit humor to me
<zompist> the rule of thumb being: brit humor involves the comic being an utter idiot. american humor involves the comic being the only sane person in a world of idiots.
<Lore> You see, here I was relying on the accents.
<Lore> I see this as being different though. A permutation. This sort of humor involves BOTH the comedian and the patsy being idiots. Only, the patsy is the REAL idiot because he doesn't KNOW he's an idiot, while the comedian is being an idiot on purpose.
<zompist> well, i'm sure you can think of a *good* example of that
<zompist> bugs and elmer, maybe
<Lore> The Lazlo Letters.
<Down10> Wait, you're comparing "fake-out/baiting" humor to "obnoxious and rude (but kidding)" humor
<Down10> Rob and Marge are the best examples of that
<Lore> Well, the thing about bugs and elmer is that they're both fictional.
<zompist> rob and marge are execrable
<Lore> So they're both, in a matter of speaking, "pretending."
<Samwise> Right, unlike Lemming of the BDA
<Lore> Uh.
<Leth> ....best....
<zompist> and indeed, i hope they're both soon execrated
<Lore> I think I've completely lost the thread of this conversation.
<zompist> HA HA! BIG BALD SWEEDE GUY LOST THE THREAD!
<Lore> Quintessential British humor involves idiot comedians in a rational world, according to Zomp, and quintessential American humor involves rational comedians in an idiot world.
<Down10> Yeah, whatta chump!
<SeanQ> WE WERE ONLY PRETNEDING TO ENGAGE YOU IN THIS CONVERSATION YOU IGNORAMUS
<Lore> I'm saying that SA/Tom Green/Jerky Boys involve rational comedians pretending to be idiots talking to real people who are the patsies, the one we're laughing at.
<Lore> Both parties are idiots, but we laugh at the "real" idiot.
<Lore> Anyway, Bugs is rational. Elmer's the idiot.
<Samwise> But, consider Daffy.
<zompist> of course, but bugs is perfectly willing to act like an idiot.
<Lore> That's true.
<Samwise> Is his idiocy intentional?
<SeanQ> every comic needs a straight man
<Lore> To trick Elmer into acting even more idiotic.
<SeanQ> no offense, Kyol
<Lore> So I guess it's an all-fiction parallel.
<Down10> I disagree with the prank calls, in that I find the instigator often funnier than the patsy who gets duped. It only works when the patsy chooses to play along
<Lore> Maybe that's the problem. Maybe I'm laughing at the wrong person.
<Lore> But I don't understand your second sentence, Down.
<SeanQ> sometimes the comic chooses to play the idiot, and his dupe is the straight man - like a prank call
<Lore> Hrm. Kind of like Emily Litella, except that Jane Curtin is someone not in on the joke.
<SeanQ> some guy screaming into the phone isn't funny without the straight man's reaction
<Lore> Huh. I feel like Michael Valentine.
<SeanQ> so that LotR thing is like Bugs putting on a dress and flirting with Elmer - acting like an idiot to inspire his fioil to higher idiocy
<Down10> I mean, if the person on the other end hangs up repeatedly or DEMANDS to know who is calling, the prank fails. It's only when the patsy keeps the (seemingly obvious) jokester on the line that the comedy is executed
<Lore> Interesting.
<Lore> Sean: I can see that. One reason it breaks down for me is that many -- not all -- of the Elmers in question don't seem Elmer-like to me. So it's more like Bugs acting like an idiot in front of Mickey, and when Mickey says "Gosh, Bugs, you're acting like a dick today," Bugs says "HA! GOT YOU!"
<Lore> (Mickey chosen because he's one of the few cartoon characters who's more bland than anything else.)
<Samwise> Even though I don't quite get the point you're illustrating, I want a wav of that conversation.
<Down10> But then, there's two kinds of prank calls-- one is where someone plays a wacky character who needs a services, and the other "accusitory" kind, meant to work up the emotions of the receiver
<Lore> The point being that the "acting like an idiot to make an idiot act even more idiotically" only works for me if the real idiot is a greater idiot than the fake idiot. If that's even parseable.
<Lore> I'm intruiged by the prank call thing. I was always under the, apparently mistaken, impression that patsy was supposed to be the one we laugh at, and the caller was the one we identified with.
<Lore> As in "God that one receptionist was such a loser" rather than "That poor receptionist, having to deal with that hilariously stupid person on the line."
<SeanQ> Lore: the idiot-laden thing you posted - that's why the LotR thing didn't work for you, I think you got it
<SeanQ> and I agree with it
<SeanQ> but then I'm a biger idiot than you, so take that with a grain of salt
<Lore> Heh.
<Lore> It's funny, I enjoyed baiting Kemlo sometimes, because he was an established pedant.
<Lore> But if I sat here and misspelled "Esperanto" over and over to see if I could get Mark to correct me, I would see it as annoying and devoid of humor.
<zompist> like esperanto itself
<Lore> So maybe it's just that fans of SA's reviews are more willing to see the Web taken as a whole as "an established pedant."
<Lore> Hrm.
<Lore> I'm still thinking about this. I can take it to my journal if people are tired of me going on about it.
<Samwise> Do go on.
<Down10> No, I agree with you, Lore. SA (like Rob and Marge) were just trolling for the thrill of watching geeks get upset, not for the actual goal of creating humor
<Leth> wait Down
<Leth> they had a goal of creating humor?
<Leth> huh
<Leth> live 'n' learn
<Lore> Oh, hey. Did anyone get a copy of that thread where people here were making up emoticon versions of movies?
<Lore> Okay, well, the thing is that I think that the reviews would be funnier if they were well-reasoned, well-thought-out, extremely negative reviews of things that are normally popular.
<Lore> And then if they posted only letters that were actually bug-eyed flames instead of mildly annoyed people.
<Lore> Because then their jerk-trap would be filtered only for people who can't stand to have something they like criticized, which is one of their stated intents.
<Lore> As it is, their jerk-trap gets too many false positives from my subjective point of view. People who aren't jerks, but who just didn't click the one link that explains the whole deal.
<Lore> I usually hate humor equations, but I'm going to make one now.
<Lore> Being a jerk to a greater jerk makes you less of a jerk, and is thus funny.
<Lore> Being a jerk to someone who's not a jerk makes you more of a jerk.
<Lore> But then, Don Rickles got an entire career out of being a jerk to non-jerks.
<Down10> humor equations / humor = dorky
<Lore> Heh, Down.
<Lore> Plus, they're wrong.
*** Down10 has been kicked off channel #spinnwebe by SeanQ (#spinnwebe - Down10 = tolerable)
<Samwise> Lore: is your change in jerkiness - delta J - proportional to the difference between your Assumed jerkiness and your target's Inherent jerkiness?
<Lore> Anyone who ever claims to be able to objectively draw a line between funny and not funny is wrong.
<Leth> anyone using "objective" and "humor" in any sort of relation is wrong
<Down10> Hmmmph! Well, I never!
<Skunk> A person's sence of humour is so subjective. Even more so than their taste in food, because no one EATS shit, but I've seen a lot of people laugh at it.
<Lore> Hell, if you told me that The Onion would have an article about a Vietnamese teenager being raped by marines that was actually funny, I would have bet money that it wouldn't be so.
<Zole> May I sheepishly ask for directions to whatever you're discussing?
<Skunk> I'm not sure.
<Lore> Heh. Nice observation, Skunk.
<Lore> That article in Our Dumb Century still blows my mind.
<Skunk> Was it, in fact, funny?
<Lore> Zole: I was going off on a particular humor page I didn't like, and it's transformed to paragraphs and paragraphs on the nature of humor.
<Down10> Well, it's all in the context
<Zole> OK.
<Lore> Well, that's the thing. It was and it wasn't.
<Lore> It's like The Onion invented a new kind of humor, the kind you don't laugh at.
<Skunk> *snort*
<Zole> I'm going to go with Gary Larson in saying that humor is forcing your brain to accept something it can't.
<Down10> The whole article is meant as a distortion of the term "pulling out" in refering to troops or cocks
<Lore> I mean, I'd never mail it to friends saying "ROTFL!!!! I SNORTED BEVERAGE OUT MY NOSE!!!'
<Skunk> I hadn't heard that, but that's a good definition.
<Lore> But it was...satire. Clever, legitimate, well-written satire.
<Skunk> Satire doesn't have to be 'laugh' humour. Usually I find it 'shake your head' humour.
<Lore> Right! Exactly!
<SeanQ> Down: didn't Chevy Chase do that joke 25 years ago on Weekend Update?
<SeanQ> "Fidel Castro announced today that he was pulling out of Angola. A frustrated Angola could not be reached for comment.""
<Down10> On the Simpsons season 1 DVD, during the commentary track, one writer said he found that comedy is what happens in a clash between two people or things that have very different goals
<Lore> One I heard was: "Like a teenager on prom night, Disney is pulling out of Virginia!"
<Samwise> "cow tools" made no one laugh, I imagine. But a funny, funny cartoon nonetheless. I think I understand...
<Zole> The Onion article is in reference to factual events that we, as a species, are pretty ashamed of. They're using these atrocities as the fulcrum of a pun. Brain can't accept it.
<Zole> Down: That may be an alternate description of the same phenomenon
<Down10> right. But I threw it out there because I agree with that statement. It's true
<Skunk> I think a lot of poorly thought out humour happens when people try and take (bad thing) and slap on (the funny) and don't get the subtile process that makes it satire
<Lore> Skunk: I have a whole Freshman course in my head on that sort of thing.
<Skunk> Oh my lord. The idea that you can go to school for this sort of thing boggles my mind.
<Zole> I'm sure you've all read that Calvin & Hobbes strip on the subject of humor.
<Lore> You see, there are a lot of things that add flavor to humor: men in drag, swearing, violence, pop culture references, self-reference, so on and so forth.
<Lore> And a lot of bad humor takes those "humor flavorings" and tries to make them the humor itself.
<Samwise> that's a shame.
<Lore> No matter what my father says, Eddie Murphy circa 1985 was not popular just because he swears.
<Skunk> That is true. Like making a salad of only bacon bits
<Zole> I haven't heard it put that way. Very interesting.
<Lore> But then, there's someone out there who has something involving men in drag hitting each other while making pop culture references that I'd find funny.
<Lore> Any rule you can make in comedy, someone can break.
<Samwise> "Don't destroy your audience"
<Lore> Actually, that sounds kind of funny as-is.
<Zole> I wish there was more text on humor theory. I mean, that I'm aware of.
<Lore> "Christina Aguilera!" WHACK! "T.G.I.Friday's!" SMACK! "You bitch!"
<Zole> I'd really like to know te psychological reasoning behind why it's not funny for Homer to have his jaw wired shut.
<Down10> Andy Kaufman broke a lot of those rules, but eventually people got sick of his act
<Skunk> Sadly enough, I can picture a stage act of men in drag hitting each other while making pop culture references. It was done as part of some advant guard thing for 'Pride Week'. But of course in the gay community men in drag come off as totally different.
<Samwise> I think anyone who tries to write gets about to the level of lucidity lore's achieved, then decides no one wants to read a book of his opinions on the subject.
<Lore> Heh.
<Zole> Sure, but where's the Freud of humor?
<Skunk> It wasn't as funny as you picture it, because it was too... erf... pretencious isn't quite the word. It just thought too hard about what it was doing. was too stilted.
<Lore> I find that sometimes I have clear out the boring rational thinking out of my head before I can get to writing humor. Like squeezing a zit.
<Samwise> Down: not because his opinions aren't valid or noteworthy, but it doesn't seem like a good "book" idea for very long.
<Lore> This is actually the more INTERESTING stuff. You should hear me go off on the future of console gaming and whether the ranger class in D&D needs to be revamped.