|
|
Dash O'Pepper (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} pfeffermuse) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2007-12-25 07:00:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
You're Interpreting Christmas from the Wrong Perspective
Lift that cup of grog, and join me in a toast to the ghosts of Christmas past, present and politically correct.
On this day of days, devoted to avarice, gluttony and seeing just how far plastic can stretch before bouncing, MSNBC.com brings the wank. It's a week old, but like your Aunt Martha's fruit cake can be quite tasty when dipped in copious amounts of rum and brandy.
Mary Beth Ellis writes a commentary on the social issues of Christmas season television specials.
"With his corncob pipe and his button nose and two eyes made out of coal . . . "
Frosty the Snowman is no friend to children. He smokes, for one thing, and he's a lumbering fashion catastrophe. He forces me to type the following sentence: His orange scarf clashes with the purple flower in his hat. When you're 8, that's a bold ensemble. At 30? You want to sign him up for "Queer Eye For the (Presumably) Straight Snowman."
"You know Dasher and Dancer, and . . . "
But let us understand the origin of Donner’s destructive behavior. Given the fact that Santa completely emasculated him about 10 minutes prior by ripping him in front of everybody for having produced a mutant, he needed to reclaim his very manhood. Therefore, he lashes out at the missus in a self-defensive patriarchal manner. You see, folks, all negative behavior stems from pain.
"The Grinch carved the roast beast!"
[W]e're bypassing the main victim here — that large, upsetting slab of roast beast. It looks like an enormous chicken, organs and all. But where the drumsticks should be there are these upsetting, pointy little hooves. . . . Was there some sort of bloody, knife-intensive, ritual hunt and sacrifice? Or did they just go off into the woods with beer, tiny bottles of beast urine and “Git-R-Done” hats? "Fah who for-aze" indeed.
Is it satire? Is it tongue in cheek? Is it simply the jaded spirit of too many lines, too many carols and too many sitings of Ralphie "You'll shoot your eye out" Parker while channel surfing during the 24-hour A Christmas Story marathon?
In 79 posts, spread across seven pages, it's clear that Mary Beth's readers are not amused:
I want the 10 minutes of my life back that I wasted reading this story. Does MSNBC actually read any of these stories before they post them? Clearly Mary Ellis has some serious issues she needs to address. What's wrong sweetheart, did you not get the doll you wanted for X-mas 20 years ago so you have some underlying hatred toward the holidays. . . . Get a grip.
I think this Mary Ellis needs to take a Valium and get a life.
You are over-complicating the message of these specials! Children should watch them, if only as a small historical glimpse of the social sensibilites of the time. And we should too, for the same reason.
And so, with only ten comments, basically telling our intrepid author to take another shot of tryptophan and get on with her holidays, Mary Beth takes a page from such noble literary icons as Anne Riceand Lee Goldberg: when the criticism is negative, start posting your rebuttals:
Message #12: I fear that some of you are misunderstanding the piece. The point of it was to purpously [sic] view these special through the eyes of an adult-- which, of course, ruins them. By showing the ridiculous reactions that we can have if we don't suspend our disbelief, I was arguing that we should view the specials as their creators intended. So you see, I really do agree that these specials still are "magical," and we ought to see to it that they remain so. If you have any other anxieties about this article, feel free to email me or visit BlondeChampagne.com. I'm sorry if you didn't like it.
And like Snoopy in his battle with the Bloody Red Baron, it doesn't take long for the critics to zoom in for the kill:
Your writing could use a big brush up, if everyone commenting here got you wrong - it isn't their fault, it's yours, for not getting your message across clearly. That's what journalists used to do, before having a blog and spouting off at the mouth became enough to make one a "writer". . . . And proofread, just to see if you're making any sense at all. . . . As satire, the article failed, full stop.
Yet, before all the stockings were hung by the chimney with care, Mary Beth is back:
Message #21: This piece went through about three different editors, all of whom seemed to think that the point got across, or it would never have made it online. I've received several very nice emails from people who liked the article, and again, if anybody has any questions about it or my qualifications (which, I assure you, extend beyond blogging), you may email me directly. I've been an online commentator for several years, and it always amazes me that many kind words come from personal email addresses, whereas any nasty comments tend to pop up in anonymous situations such as this. Should any of you wish to have a civil discussion with me via email, I welcome it.
Mary Beth's made her list, and checked it twice:
Message #23 (and #25): It wasn't a backpedal at all. I haven't disavowed the article. I was merely explaining that it was a satire . . . I'm sorry if some of you here did not like the piece, but it truly was satire.
But here we are back in olden days, happy golden days of yore:
Your look back at these television specials from an adult perspective fell flat because it's neither funny nor insightful.
Christmas eve will find her where thewank love light gleams:
Message #37: One more comment here: I certainly don't expect every person on the planet to agree with or love each word I've written. If you don't understand that this piece was satirical, that's one thing; if you understood that it was satire and still didn't like it, that's another. It is the nature of writing. Everyone is welcome to his or her own opinion. I have just as many emails from people who thanked me for the piece and liked it.
What troubles me is the insulting nature of some of these responses. I have always beleived [sic] that a vital part of writing is the discussion with readers, so I came here to reiterate that this is indeed a satire. In my responses, I've calmy [sic] explained myself and even apologized to those of you who didn't like a piece which didn't cost you a dime to read. However, some of you, never having met me, have decided that I am a nasty, miserable person, even after (presumably) reading my explanation. If I truly am such a brooding termagant, do you really think I would have responded in this manner?
Faithless Faithful friends who are dear to us, gather near to us once more:
Actually, I think you recognize it now for the poor writing it is, Mary Beth. I sense back peddling. Please spare us your lecture on satire. This wasn't satire. Satire tends to be funny. Your Christmas gift to us was wasting our time.
I read the article again, and it just sounds to me like you're trying to blame some innocent cartoons for problems in society. The one thing I did find funny is that you took time to call out one of your competitors (CBS), for airing these shows, without taking a look at your own networks choice of programming.
Sounds like Mary Beth was trying to be the "Art Buchwald" or "Erma Bombeck" writing satire about children's Christmas shows . She bombs miserably.
Your post did not seem "satire". Yes, there was satire IN it, but even the link from MSNBC to this message board was labeled "What problems do you see with Holiday Specials", and the TITLE of this message board is "Social Issues in Christmas Specials". There is a LOT of indication you wanted to make an issue of social problems in these films. Certainly you used "Satire", but I think you had some serious points you needed to make and sorry if you didn't like the reaction. Now you see people are annoyed with your article. So you now pawn it off as "it was ALL satire". I am not biting.
I'm not offended, because the 'point' that the author is making is just so transparent and sophomoric. . . . The entire article just smacked of being utterly pretentious garbage being passed off as smug editorial. That's the problem with the internet... It gives a voice to people who think that they alone have a unique idea simply because they have a podium. The irony perhaps, is that Mary Beth as an author was unable to see past the very thing that she claims to be satirizing.
. . . and they heard her exclaim 'ere she wrote out of site, happy festivus to all and to all a good knight.
Lift that cup of grog, and join me in a toast to the ghosts of Christmas past, present and politically correct.
On this day of days, devoted to avarice, gluttony and seeing just how far plastic can stretch before bouncing, MSNBC.com brings the wank. It's a week old, but like your Aunt Martha's fruit cake can be quite tasty when dipped in copious amounts of rum and brandy.
Mary Beth Ellis writes a commentary on the social issues of Christmas season television specials.
"With his corncob pipe and his button nose and two eyes made out of coal . . . "
Frosty the Snowman is no friend to children. He smokes, for one thing, and he's a lumbering fashion catastrophe. He forces me to type the following sentence: His orange scarf clashes with the purple flower in his hat. When you're 8, that's a bold ensemble. At 30? You want to sign him up for "Queer Eye For the (Presumably) Straight Snowman."
"You know Dasher and Dancer, and . . . "
But let us understand the origin of Donner’s destructive behavior. Given the fact that Santa completely emasculated him about 10 minutes prior by ripping him in front of everybody for having produced a mutant, he needed to reclaim his very manhood. Therefore, he lashes out at the missus in a self-defensive patriarchal manner. You see, folks, all negative behavior stems from pain.
"The Grinch carved the roast beast!"
[W]e're bypassing the main victim here — that large, upsetting slab of roast beast. It looks like an enormous chicken, organs and all. But where the drumsticks should be there are these upsetting, pointy little hooves. . . . Was there some sort of bloody, knife-intensive, ritual hunt and sacrifice? Or did they just go off into the woods with beer, tiny bottles of beast urine and “Git-R-Done” hats? "Fah who for-aze" indeed.
Is it satire? Is it tongue in cheek? Is it simply the jaded spirit of too many lines, too many carols and too many sitings of Ralphie "You'll shoot your eye out" Parker while channel surfing during the 24-hour A Christmas Story marathon?
In 79 posts, spread across seven pages, it's clear that Mary Beth's readers are not amused:
I want the 10 minutes of my life back that I wasted reading this story. Does MSNBC actually read any of these stories before they post them? Clearly Mary Ellis has some serious issues she needs to address. What's wrong sweetheart, did you not get the doll you wanted for X-mas 20 years ago so you have some underlying hatred toward the holidays. . . . Get a grip.
I think this Mary Ellis needs to take a Valium and get a life.
You are over-complicating the message of these specials! Children should watch them, if only as a small historical glimpse of the social sensibilites of the time. And we should too, for the same reason.
And so, with only ten comments, basically telling our intrepid author to take another shot of tryptophan and get on with her holidays, Mary Beth takes a page from such noble literary icons as Anne Rice
Message #12: I fear that some of you are misunderstanding the piece. The point of it was to purpously [sic] view these special through the eyes of an adult-- which, of course, ruins them. By showing the ridiculous reactions that we can have if we don't suspend our disbelief, I was arguing that we should view the specials as their creators intended. So you see, I really do agree that these specials still are "magical," and we ought to see to it that they remain so. If you have any other anxieties about this article, feel free to email me or visit BlondeChampagne.com. I'm sorry if you didn't like it.
And like Snoopy in his battle with the Bloody Red Baron, it doesn't take long for the critics to zoom in for the kill:
Your writing could use a big brush up, if everyone commenting here got you wrong - it isn't their fault, it's yours, for not getting your message across clearly. That's what journalists used to do, before having a blog and spouting off at the mouth became enough to make one a "writer". . . . And proofread, just to see if you're making any sense at all. . . . As satire, the article failed, full stop.
Yet, before all the stockings were hung by the chimney with care, Mary Beth is back:
Message #21: This piece went through about three different editors, all of whom seemed to think that the point got across, or it would never have made it online. I've received several very nice emails from people who liked the article, and again, if anybody has any questions about it or my qualifications (which, I assure you, extend beyond blogging), you may email me directly. I've been an online commentator for several years, and it always amazes me that many kind words come from personal email addresses, whereas any nasty comments tend to pop up in anonymous situations such as this. Should any of you wish to have a civil discussion with me via email, I welcome it.
Mary Beth's made her list, and checked it twice:
Message #23 (and #25): It wasn't a backpedal at all. I haven't disavowed the article. I was merely explaining that it was a satire . . . I'm sorry if some of you here did not like the piece, but it truly was satire.
But here we are back in olden days, happy golden days of yore:
Your look back at these television specials from an adult perspective fell flat because it's neither funny nor insightful.
Christmas eve will find her where the
Message #37: One more comment here: I certainly don't expect every person on the planet to agree with or love each word I've written. If you don't understand that this piece was satirical, that's one thing; if you understood that it was satire and still didn't like it, that's another. It is the nature of writing. Everyone is welcome to his or her own opinion. I have just as many emails from people who thanked me for the piece and liked it.
What troubles me is the insulting nature of some of these responses. I have always beleived [sic] that a vital part of writing is the discussion with readers, so I came here to reiterate that this is indeed a satire. In my responses, I've calmy [sic] explained myself and even apologized to those of you who didn't like a piece which didn't cost you a dime to read. However, some of you, never having met me, have decided that I am a nasty, miserable person, even after (presumably) reading my explanation. If I truly am such a brooding termagant, do you really think I would have responded in this manner?
Actually, I think you recognize it now for the poor writing it is, Mary Beth. I sense back peddling. Please spare us your lecture on satire. This wasn't satire. Satire tends to be funny. Your Christmas gift to us was wasting our time.
I read the article again, and it just sounds to me like you're trying to blame some innocent cartoons for problems in society. The one thing I did find funny is that you took time to call out one of your competitors (CBS), for airing these shows, without taking a look at your own networks choice of programming.
Sounds like Mary Beth was trying to be the "Art Buchwald" or "Erma Bombeck" writing satire about children's Christmas shows . She bombs miserably.
Your post did not seem "satire". Yes, there was satire IN it, but even the link from MSNBC to this message board was labeled "What problems do you see with Holiday Specials", and the TITLE of this message board is "Social Issues in Christmas Specials". There is a LOT of indication you wanted to make an issue of social problems in these films. Certainly you used "Satire", but I think you had some serious points you needed to make and sorry if you didn't like the reaction. Now you see people are annoyed with your article. So you now pawn it off as "it was ALL satire". I am not biting.
I'm not offended, because the 'point' that the author is making is just so transparent and sophomoric. . . . The entire article just smacked of being utterly pretentious garbage being passed off as smug editorial. That's the problem with the internet... It gives a voice to people who think that they alone have a unique idea simply because they have a podium. The irony perhaps, is that Mary Beth as an author was unable to see past the very thing that she claims to be satirizing.
. . . and they heard her exclaim 'ere she wrote out of site, happy festivus to all and to all a good knight.
Post a comment in response:
