[LNH] [META] Metaphysical Meanderings

Andrew Perron 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:

>Andrew asked:
>> 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:
>         http://archives.eyrie.org/racc/lnh/Background/

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
predictable fashion.)

>> 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
Lad. *lazy*

More information about the racc mailing list