Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!reiher
From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson's June reviews
Message-ID: <6352@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 19:36:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6352
Posted: Wed Jul 17 19:36:21 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 23:58:56 EDT
References: <8827@ucbvax.ARPA> <3200003@ccvaxa> <9003@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 70
Summary: 

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