GilPanama comments on Things you are supposed to like - Less Wrong

68 Post author: PhilGoetz 22 October 2011 02:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (367)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: GilPanama 23 October 2011 01:17:19AM *  11 points [-]

Because I accidentally derailed my last post into pedantry, let me try again with a clearer heuristic:

A TEST FOR ART YOU REALLY LIKE:

Try to make fun of it.

If you can make fun of it, and you still like it, then you don't like it just because it's sacred.

This doesn't have to be a deep parody - I don't really think I could write a deep parody of Bach's Magnificat in D. But I can definitely imagine the parts that move me the most, the sublime moments that touch me to my core, played by a synthesizer orchestra that only does fart noises.

Comment author: Prismattic 23 October 2011 02:33:44AM 3 points [-]

If the original work is itself a satire, do you try to make a humorless version of it?

Comment author: GilPanama 23 October 2011 05:48:27AM *  3 points [-]

If the original work is itself a satire, do you try to make a humorless version of it?

Hmm...

"In the seminal Zucker, Zucker, and Abrams opus Airplane!, one character, played by Leslie Nielsen, asks another to pilot an passenger airliner in an emergency. The would-be pilot responds with incredulity, but is coolly rebuffed by the Leslie Nielsen character. This evinces laughter from the audience, as the exchange involves a confusion between two near-homophones."

Heh, heh... still funny.

For less goofy, more drily satirical stuff, I think that making a satire of the satire is still a viable option.

Comment author: CronoDAS 23 October 2011 07:39:10PM 8 points [-]

"In the seminal Zucker, Zucker, and Abrams opus Airplane!, one character, played by Leslie Nielsen, asks another to pilot an passenger airliner in an emergency. The would-be pilot responds with incredulity, but is coolly rebuffed by the Leslie Nielsen character. This evinces laughter from the audience, as the exchange involves a confusion between two near-homophones."

You might be interested to know that "Airplane!" was itself essentially a shot-for-shot remake of a "serious" made-for-TV movie with exactly the same plot - with, of course, jokes added in.

Comment author: GilPanama 23 October 2011 08:15:46PM *  2 points [-]

I was aware of the genre it spoofed, but I didn't know that it was so specifically targeted. I'm tempted to try to find that made-for-TV movie and watch clips just to increase my appreciation of Airplane!

Comment author: Unnamed 23 October 2011 09:15:07PM *  2 points [-]

Zero Hour! It's available on Netflix.

Comment author: Mercy 27 October 2011 02:40:12PM -2 points [-]

I think worries about status seeking false preference formation start to break down when you apply them to comedy. For one thing laughter is involuntary, so you should know if you are faking in the teenager pretending to like spirits sense- you can't half convince yourself you find something funny if you don't.

For another the social aspect is often inherent to the form. Saying that you don't really like Steptoe and Son because you wouldn't find it funny if there wasn't a laugh track, or you didn't really like that Stewart Lee because if you were the only person in the room you wouldn't have laughed, doesn't to my mind make any more sense than saying you don't like dance music because you wouldn't listen to it on your own or you "only" like a song because of a happy memory associated with it.

Comment author: Prismattic 28 October 2011 12:55:07AM *  2 points [-]

For the benefit of those of us born in a different country and in a subsequent decade, useful context

Steptoe and Son

Stewart Lee

Seriously, as a 30-something American, I had no familiarity with either of these.

Comment author: bbleeker 23 September 2012 03:36:37PM 1 point [-]