[LNH] [META] Metaphysical Meanderings
pwerdna at outgun.com
Tue Aug 3 11:52:36 PDT 2004
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 03:19:38 +0000 (UTC), Saxon Brenton
<saxon.brenton at uts.edu.au> wrote:
>> A random idea, culled from reading the entire archived run of
>> Limp-Asparagus Lad over again:
> Okay then. Before we start, Jamas and myself were having an email
>discussion a few weeks ago about how big a readership RACC net.comics
>would be getting, and in the specific case of Blue Light productions,
>where they were reading them from. So: where you reading them at the
>LNH archives, or the BLiP page specifically?
LNH archives. Though interestingly, I originally got into LNH back in
the summer of either '94 or '95 through the BLiP site (reached after a
web search on MST3K).
>> Say the Writers were somehow rendered unable to transmit Drama to
>> the Looniverse. Could Humor and Comedy be used as a substitute?
>< blinks >
> You know, I've never thought of it that way. I should have, just
>like I should have picked up the fact that you were the one who
>Librarian Lad and Weirdo Boy, but both of them went straight past me.
^-^v That's the good part of a mind that leaps to new ideas
constantly. The bad part is... well, how many of you liked the
Librarian Lad and Weirdo Boy tenth-anniversary spectacular? >.>
> Hurm. Quick and dirty answer: maybe, but I suspect that they
>wouldn't do as good a job at it. Keep in mind that a lot of my
>ramblings of this topic are in conjunction with ideas and stuff that
>appeared in Legion of Occult Heroes and Dvandom Force. In
>particular, Dvandom wrote a good paper on it in the Stomper Files #4
>- Logic vs Drama, and to a lesser extent in #5 - Science vs Fiction:
All sterling works of quantum dramatidynamics.
> Now, we could conjecture that as far as keeping a universe
>*coherent*, Drama is a far more workable tool than Humour, simply
>because Drama is more likely to produce extended storylines and
>history while Humour is more likely to produce short lives gags.
>Those are generalisations, of course, but I think the adequately
>summarise the overall tendencies of both forces.
One *could* supposit an entire universe that was a type of shaggy dog
story. `.`v Or an enormous practical joke - I'm not sure *our* reality
doesn't fit this bill. >.>
> Since they are both ways of Writers/Authors intervening in a
>universe and shaping it towards a certain shape/story, they may well
>be interchangeable in a pinch. But they work in different ways, and
>aren't going to be as efficient as a substitute for one another as
>the original would be. Kinda like running a car on leaded fuel when
>it's been built for unleaded, or even ethanol - sure, it's all fuel
>and it all burns, but...
True. For one thing, good comedy involves unexpectedness; thus, it
would have much less stablility in its natural laws. (Drama involves
ignoring natural laws as well, of course, but in a far more
>> Likewise, would cutting off the flow of Humor have disastrous
>> results similar to cutting off Drama?
> Hmm. Dunno. It might seriously damage the universe, or it might
>simply become more serious. Or going off in the other direction,
>possibly the void left by the absence of Humour would become filled
>with Angst, which would be a fate worse than death.
*nods* And, of course, it might have the side effect of cutting off
the interest in, and thus, the life-force of, the universe. On the
*other* hand, if you could get someone well-skilled with pure drama
writing, you might be able to avoid side effects entirely; of course,
among LNH writers, that pretty much leaves Paul Hardy and Dave van
Domelen. And even they'd probably have trouble with a *total* lack of
Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, oh, and the guy who wrote Pliable
More information about the racc