[LNH] [META] Metaphysical Meanderings
pwerdna at outgun.com
Tue Aug 3 11:49:56 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
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