|
Narrative
|
Describe Poe's Law Discussion here.
Doesn't Poe's Law imply they just fail because they're unfunny? Except for Jack Chick and occasionally the onion, I can hardly see humor in them.
And there's someting really wrong about having to go to a news channel to explain your joke to the public. I hope stand-up comedians don't have to go that far.
Blork: "Except for Jack Chick"? That's one of the serious ones. That's where the problem comes from - it becomes almost impossible to make a satire because no matter what you say, someone has said something more ridiculous and meant it.
Daibhid C: Does it only apply to politics? Because I found myself in a similar situation with the Serious Business of Discworld annotations. During a time when alt.fan.pratchett was being riddled with ever-more unlikely and tactlessly-phrased "that's where he got it from" posts, I posted a tongue-in-cheek claim that Susan Sto Helit was "obviously based on" Susan Pevensie. I then had to apoligise profusely when Terry Pratchett thought I meant it. Ex Ottoyuhr: I mentioned the navel-gazing world of High Art here — now that I think about it, Alan Sokal, who submitted a parody paper to a literary-critical journal called _Social Text_, is another good example. Adding that too. gibberingtroper: I've encountered examples that go to the other extreme (radicalism and/or atheism). Do they go in this trope or is there an equivalent article for them? Great Limmick: I don't think the nature of the opinion matters, as long as it could pass as both a joke and a serious comment. Nornagest: Cut —
|
This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
