Webcomic Woes

I remember the summer of 2011. I approached you with curiosity, and while your off-kilter humor was foreign in my inexperience, I was soon captured by your wit. You were strange, funny, and took hold of my imagination, Homestuck. I stayed up in the wee hours of the night, completely entranced with the stories you had to tell. You opened the gates to a fanbase that spanned infinitely, blooming with creativity. I would write with you, draw with you, laugh and cry with you, and millions more would share the same experience. I was intoxicated in this overdose of paradise.

I remember Cascade, all those anxious months in wait for the climactic flash movie, then almost missing the bus while watching it and giddily awaiting the next development. The kids and trolls meeting up! New characters! New challenges! You spoiled me, Homestuck, building up to that one point. But afterwards, as it is natural after a climax, you would wind down in a less-than-graceful way. The new focus on romance and soap-opera-like character relations was unexpected, compared to the vast plot that defined the world’s existence in itself, which comes to mind when others think of you. A year after Cascade, and I look at the tricksters, the alpha trolls, the new and convoluted shipping, and it pains me. It pains me to know that the world is losing what was once a wonderful story. Having to please over two million people is an impossible feat, but over time it came to me that that you’re not being true to the spirit your story once was.

               

Do you remember the summer of 2011? Already two years into your tale then, and rapidly acquiring a huge following. Your future was as bright as the green sun. But as all great empires have their golden ages of peace and prosperity, internal corruption will inevitably rot them away from the inside out. I don’t think I could ever forget you, Homestuck. I discovered a whole new way to share my stories, and I made lasting friendships from you as well. Even if the spark is lost, even if the new updates are just not the same, I am still so proud of the world-wide creative explosion you have fostered.

Revenge: is it worth the effort?

                
Revenge is probably the most overrated thing on the planet. Many of us have a strong, personal sense of justice, and be it either eating the last ice cream sandwich or murdering your father, when wrong is done against you, you want to deal sweet retribution. Sadly, the reality is that while vengeance is sweet like a fat slice of cake, the taste goes away leaving you in a state on discontent and feeling slightly bloated. Revenge in media is seven-times-out-of-ten unsuccessful, as an estimate. Even when payback is issued, it is more interesting to see the avenging character coming out less-than victorious, leaving us readers with the question: “Was it truly worth it?”. Whether it was just to act they way they did, could have been pulled off better, or simply ridiculous, how acts of vengeance are portrayed depends highly with context. (So no, you can’t rely on the notion that “they deserved it” when you’re testifying for assault and battery on the person who took your ice cream sandwich). 

“O, from this time forth, / My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!”

Therefore, this idealistic and all too common theme can be taken many ways in written work, most notably in the Shakesperean tragedy Hamlet and less notably in the show Dan Vs., where revenge is taken more comically. Both examples present attempts at revenge, each being “resolved” in radically different ways. Both fail miserable. But in different ways too! (Maybe they were right to take revenge in a comedic way. There’s so many things that can go wrong it’s hilarious).

            Hamlet is more serious as well as required reading, so, naturally, I’d like to get that out of the way first. The idea is that the ghost of Hamlet’s father appears before him, telling Hamlet that his uncle, King Claudius, murdered Hamlet’s father. Hamlet then seeks revenge, but not immediately. He likes to take his time, be it due to uncertainty, a need to prove Claudius’s guilt, or small foils in his plan. But during the time where Hamlet was acting mad, and plotting, he accidentally kills Polonius, Ophelia kills herself out of grief for her father (Polonius), his two ex-friends, Rosencratz and Guildenstern are probably dead somewhere in England due to another overcome foil. By the time Hamlet actually kills Claudius, Laeretes (who swore revenge on Hamlet after killing his father(GOD that’s like meta-revenge here)) is slain, Hamlet’s mother Gertrude drinks the poison set for Hamlet. And then Hamlet dies due to being poisoned by Laeretes. In short, things got REALLY messy due to Hamlet’s thirst for vengeance against his father, as well as his hesitation, and it inadvertently caused the death of nearly every character. And then there’s the “Is it really worth it?” question. But even though Hamlet DID get his revenge against Claudius, it was a bit of an overkill. Not only did many of Hamlet’s closest friends and himself die, but because of Hamlet’s revenge I have to drudge through Elizabethan English and study it in class. So no, it really was not worth it at all.

Though if we studied something along the lines of this, I think it would be a lot easier

            Of course I have to tie in something that brings me less anxiety in my life, as to make this unit more bearable. And what better example than to present a show that is built entirely on revenge: petty, rage-fueled, and comedic revenge.

I mean, how can I NOT tie this in when there's an entire Shakespeare episode?

Thankfully, nobody ever dies in Dan Vs. But with every mundane thing Dan does have an unhealthy obsession with revenge, there are three more on the list. I am not kidding. He has a list. At the end of each episode, through some hijincks, the bane of Dan’s day is vanquished, temporarily avenged. And I say temporarily because there’s a whole ‘nother episode next on something else that pisses Dan off. It seems to be a never-ending cycle for this poor guy. He does get his revenge, but it's never satisfying. There will be always something else plaguing him, and we have to ask again if it's really worth all the trouble. And not if it's worth it to Dan, he's beyond help, but if revenge in itself is even worth carrying out. And that answer would be: It depends. There are times when vigilantism would be appropriate, but if you're like me and getting though school and spending the rest of your time on the internet and not in a state of clan warfare, then maybe if you're mad at someone you should cool down and think. It's a good life lesson to think about your actions, and if they're really worth it.

And with that I leave you goodnight

All in good fun, while proving a point

I can safely say that humor is basically my entire life. Be it lame puns, potty humor, or dry-as-a-desert snark, I love to joke around and laugh at the funny around me. Though there is one comedic device that is so hard-hitting, yet so misunderstood.

That would be satire

To me, executing satire is like setting up a fireworks show. It takes considerable time and wit to set up, and once it goes off, it’s rather loud and obnoxious. And many people don’t care to look at the display and complain about the noise instead. Point being, people can mistake satire as being dead serious way too easily. And when people get offended at satire, it’s almost like a joke in itself (I also love meta-humor).

A common target of offence is the show South Park (which I am solely watching for research shhh). Just like one doesn’t say “MacBeth” in a theatre, one doesn’t say “South Park”…. pretty much anywhere in public. The show cracks up the offensiveness, violence, language, and all-out grossness up to eleven. And yet they handle satire oh so well. The main reason being that everyone and everything is a target. There is no “acceptable targets” and rarely any bias. A short list of everything South Park has made fun of can be found here. 

In many an interview the creaters commented on said case and said that “[Parker and Stone] describe themselves as ‘equal opportunity offenders’,whose main agenda is to ‘be funny’ and ‘make people laugh’, while stating that no particular topic or group of people be spared the expense of being subject to mockery and satire”

That kind of non-discriminating humor is what I admire. Mark Twain, in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn spares no one in his written landscape. He pokes fun at all sides of race, class, age, and who knows what else.

Looking at a specific South Park episode, I believe “The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs” would be an appropriate example, mainly because it satirizes banned books. The script can be found here as well as the actual episode, if you prefer to watch (Fair warning, both have pretty rude language, but from what I hear in the hallways, I’m sure any high-school student can handle it).

The basic idea is that the four main boys read The Catcher in the Rye for class, while being told that the book was extremely offensive. They read the book and find nothing wrong with it, only that the main character swears some. The boys think that they can write a book that’s WAY more offensive than that and write The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs.  In fact, it is so offensive that whoever reads it promptly vomits, and then hails the book as literary genius because despite the grossness, it was just that good enough to become a national phenomenon. People even try to find a deeper meaning in the book, as well as align it with a sociopolitical agenda, despite there being no deeper meaning than being purposely barf-worthy offensive.  There are also jabs at the idea that banned books cause people to have a desire to kill others. These examples have been exaggerating the reactions to shocking/brilliant literature as well as people finding very distant meanings in books than what was intended (with apologies to all English teachers…).  All though any ridiculous or exaggerated behavior the world might have regarding this book, the boys were the young commentators of the absurdity satirized.

While effectively parodying and exaggerating aspects of southern life such as (but not limited to) supernatural beliefs held by slaves, feuding families, religious revivals, and racist sentiments, Mark Twain also gives Huck Finn not just a series of adventures, but an opportunity to provide insight to the behaviors satirized. Another thing the two mediums have in common is that the perspective provided is one of a kid. And while either Huck nor Kyle nor San, Kenny, nor (definitely nor) Cartman might be at all exemplar people, they all seem to have some kind of perspective on what’s going on, and might be able to notice what’s wrong. And through that commentary and satirical humor, Twain, and Parker and Stone can make a point and jab at follies indiscriminately, while being funny all the same.

Sources: Satire comes in many forms, but the ones I focused on were of parody and exaggeration, as well as the broad use of subject matter. Through class time and life experience I have learned about what makes satire satirical, though really, a fart joke would get a good amount of laughter as well and it doesn’t take much to execute. But humor is humor, and learning about it is less painful than a lot of things we could be doing

Also I would like to thank Dearest Reader for staying with me all 800-something words. In this 144 character age, you really are a true soldier. I salute you.

welcom 2 my bloge il b ur guide

Here goes the first post. Second I'll have to write about satire, but I just wanted to get the ball rolling. Plus I really like Satire, so I'll be exited to write about it
Just
Satire
Wow
Yes.
Funny is great.
I mean, funny keeps me from a spiraling deep depression so I'm pumped to research about it.
I like being funny. I think I can be funny, I don't know.
Stay tuned, or something.
I'll be tagging these personal posts "brainfarts" btw