<< via >>
Tag Archive: satire
To skip all this disclaimer bollocks and get straight to the curious adventures click here
I have, very recently, completed a short story, whose title you can see above. Ordinarily, i would attempt to get it published, sending it around to magazines both on-and-offline, and hold out for the one that offered the best rate (this has never actually worked). But even I, with my optimistic smoke-filled eyes, can see that I could shop this around to a thousand publications, over the course of a year and a half, and still be rejected. Alot of them, most of them, want exclusive electronic rights – so in all that time it would languish on my hard-drive, unread.
Why though? Why am I so certain that it would be rejected? I shall tell you. It is without a doubt the most perverse thing I have ever written. It is sick. It is twisted. It is likely to offend. It’s also quite funny, in my opinion.
The list of the kinds of people who may be offended by the words and narrative contained within is long; too long to be included here. A brief overview would likely include feminists, masculinists, liberals, conservatives, vegetarians, vegans, the upper-middle classes, the lower-middle classes, the lower-upper classes, the upper-upper classes, those with a sensitive disposition and most probably anybody with any kind of moral compass.
So, I guess this is a disclaimer. It is not my intention to offend, only to amuse and illuminate. Please don’t read much further if you are likely to descend into a rabid furor of outrage. Actually, please feel free. You will probably find it a cleansing experience.
When i started writing it I conceived it as a satirical reflection on the works of the Marquis de Sade with Cronenbergian overtones. There is perhaps an undercurrent of feminist thought and a critique of society, although these may in fact be accidental. I may, in fact, be suffering from delusions of granduer.
If you read it, and after giving it some thought I have changed my mind and in fact urge you to read it, please – share it. Throw it up on facebook, your blog, your twitterstream. Email it to friends. Mention it on the forums you frequent. Leave me horrified diatribes in the comments. Let me know if you like it, if you hate it, if you want more. There can be more. If you want it.
I’m not usually one to be so forthcoming. I’ve been blogging on and off for a decade – i’ve seen the raise and fall of traffic, the waxing and waning of interest. All the while I’ve played it cool. There’s nothing worse than some whiny prick begging for attention on his blog. I’m making the exception here though, because i think that ‘The Curious Adventures of Lord Fuckington’ is worth the possible backlash.
I started writing this is a lark, a piece of amusement for myself and friends. Something to write after a several month long lapse of creative output. I throughly enjoyed writing it and as i showed it around to a few people i realised that people throughly enjoyed reading it (even those that were somewhat disturbed by it). So, I figured, why not throw some effort of promotion behind it? If it sinks unnoticed beneath the surface of the internet so be it, but at least I will of tried.
So, i bequeath you to read. And link. And comment. And if you want more let me know. There is a very possible long-form narrative for this. Get to the end and you’ll see an inkling of what i mean.
Oh yeah, one more thing. Although I have strived to correct spelling mistakes, it is somewhat unproofed. Just so you know.
Of all egotists, Montaigne, if not the greatest, was the most fascinating, because, perhaps, he was the least affected and most truthful. What he did, and what he had professed to do, was to dissect his mind, and show us, as best he could, how it was made, and what relation it bore to external objects. He investigated his mental structure as a schoolboy pulls his watch to pieces, to examine the mechanism of the works; and the result, accompanied by illustrations abounding with originality and force, he delivered to his fellow-men in a book.
I don’t watch Newswipe. This is a tragedy of epic proportions. Well, maybe not epic. I mean, in the scheme of things it barely even registers on any kind of scale. Really, I should say it’s a personal tragedy but even then it’s not like my cat being run over by an SUV whilst i’m watching from the pavement as I’m being beaten into a temporary coma by a gang of viscious 6 year olds, which is probably more personally tragic then not watching a tv show. Let’s just say i was going for a bit of dynamic hyperbole and leave it at that, shall we?
Anyway, I should be watching this show. I should be watching everything Charlie Brooker does. Everybody should. Maybe then there’s a chance we can save ourselves from drowning in our own stinking mediocrity. Although probably not.
Doug Stanhope does a spot on newswipe. He’s like this really cynical, twisted and bitter comic from the states and therefore deserves your respect. I first heard of Doug Stanhope through media-underground, where head dissident Mortimer is a big fan. Plus, i think he got drunk with him a whole bunch of times. I checked him out and being suitably impressed told all my friends. They nodded their heads and were like “cool” but then proceeded to ignore me. Now they’re trying to tell me about how great Doug Stanhope is. Well, fuck you. I told you first!
( actually, it didn’t exactly go like that, but I’m trying to cultivate a vibe here – i am aware that I am coming across as some despicable hipster douche but it’s all for fun, promise. )
Doug has his own channel over on youtube, which includes his spots on newswipe, so, like, go and check it out.
Here’s some tasters:
oh yeah, inspired by stumbling across this
I remember the wombles. I remember the theme tune. I remember the way their little noses used to crinkle up. I don’t remember thinking “My Godot! This show is capitalist indoctrination!”
And now, thanks to this guy, that’s all I will ever be able to think about when the wombles float into my head. I don’t know whether to thank him or beat him to death with his own petard.
thanks be to matt for the direction pointing
This is for my mate crystal, who was forced to read Twilight as part of her university course.
” Bam! Bitch Went down! ”
Oh, the onion. How do i love thee? Let me count the ways!
video after the click.
One of the short films we were left raving about at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival was an animated film titled Logorama. I was convinced at the time that the short would never see the light of day due to the obvious legalities involved. But I guess since it has now been nominated for the ultimate award, the creators are no longer afraid to put it online.
Written and directed by the French team of François Alaux and Herve de Crecy, and created over the course of a few years, this Best Animated Oscar-Nominated short film features a world full of brand logos and corporate mascots (I’m sure a couple thousand appear in all — it even features fictional companies like the Buy N Large logo from Pixar’s Wall-E) Watch the short film now, embedded after the jump.
One of the major pains in the arse about wordpress.com is that the only place you can embed video from is youtube. Follow the link to check this short out, it’s about 15-16 minutes long.
Posting this whole. Cuz i’m a cunt. But look! there’s a link to the author’s name! Maybe i’m not so bad after all…..
( “nah mate, your a prick. why don’t you do some original content for a change?!?” )
STFU conscience, if i wanted your opinion i wouldn’t of obliterated you with that cocktail of ketamine, cocaine and whisky.
What Makes A Fuckhead?
Ever since the dawn of time, Humankind has been divided into two camps: Those who were welcome in the camps, and those who weren’t. Stanley Kubrick’s film classic 2001: A Space Odyssey best depicts this early schism in human ancestors: At the side of the communal water stream, the social apes whacked the antisocial apes over the heads with bones.
Over time, religious tradition, social science, and human evolution have recognized the basic division of mankind into social and antisocial camps. The antisocial have been shunned, excommunicated, pressed into exile, and even hunted as the social group has forced the antisocial from its camps, cities, and homes.
With the advent of the Internet as a force in popular culture, this schism has not only survived, but become stronger and more readily acknowledged. In the new Information Age, the antisocial face new pressures, such as flaming, Usenet death penalties, and being netcopped, and they even have a new name.
They are called Fuckheads.
But what makes a person a Fuckhead? You cannot tell a fuckhead just by looking at the e-mail address, or the Web site, or even by the newsgroups the individual frequents. A fuckhead is a person who, through the pattern of repeated behaviour when dealing with other Netizens in IRC and Usenet, demonstrates certain characteristics and a repeated inability or unwillingness to change or modify his/her behavior to conform to the social code of conduct called “netiquette.”
These are the characteristics that make the Fuckhead:
A Fuckhead Must Have An Exaggerated Sense of His/Her Own Importance
The Internet fuckhead will come to the table insuperably convinced of his/her own correctness and of his/her immediacy in any debate or discussion. For example, the non-fuckhead will join a discussion cautiously, reading over the prior correspondance and offering an opinion thoughtfully. The fuckhead will come plowing in without regard to the established parameters of the debate and without regard to the existing participants.
The fuckhead, when challenged, will then state some fantastic-sounding credentials to justify and bolster the strong opinion. When challenged further, the fuckhead will usually display anger and refuse to further substantiate the presented credentials, some sort of “I already said so, and that should be good enough for you!”
At this point the Fuckhead has demonstrated an exaggerated sense of his/her own importance: He has presented an overriding opinion which, in the fuckhead’s mind, should be definitive and cease all debate, and the fuckhead will be unable to understand why the other Netizens will not accept his/her opinion on sight.
A Fuckhead Must Refuse to Abide By Common Social Rules
One of the most common traits of the on-line Fuckhead is the absolute refusal to follow common social rules. For example, the fuckhead will use racist or sexist terms, will use inappropriate references to bodily functions, or will otherwise not respect the rules of society.
Fuckheads will frequently use a persecution defense when they are asked to cease their antisocial behavior. They may claim that they are being singled out because of their unpopular viewpoints, or that they are victimized by the nebulous “political correctness” movement. These claims attempt to avoid the obvious cause of the challenge, which is the antisocial behavior itself, by demonizing the reaction to the behavior.
The Fuckhead’s refusal to abide by common social rules is therefore manifested. In the early chapters of history, such refusal to abide by the rules of the group would lead one to be unwelcome by the fire, or to be tarred and feathered. Now, though, it is just one more characteristic in the profile of the Fuckhead.
A Fuckhead Must Never Back Down When Caught In A Lie
It is so easy to obtain all sorts of facts on the modern Information Superhighway that it is hard to imagine anyone attempting to lie, simply because it is so easy to get caught in a lie and therefore have your credence demolished. That does not stop the on-line Fuckhead.
The on-line Fuckhead will lie about where he/she is, what he/she does, who he/she is, and what he/she knows. For example, a Fuckhead will claim to be an attorney, even though there are several on-line directories of attorneys which do not include the Fuckhead. A Fuckhead will claim to be in a certain geographic location but not be able to provide details such as the street on which he/she is located, yet the Internet provides many detailed maps and guidebooks and even services which tell you how to drive from your location to any address.
Yet this abundance of proof and truth does not deter the Fuckhead trait of mendacity. “I never said that,” claims the Usenet fuckhead, yet the Usenet archive can give you chapter, verse, and message ID. And, as befits the Fuckhead, when you challenge the Fuckhead and prove that the Fuckhead has lied, the Fuckhead will usually respond with a completely irrelevant ad-hominem attack. Such is the way of the Fuckhead.
A Fuckhead Must Keep Coming Back Without Mending His/Her Ways
“Don’t you ever learn?” This question is one of the most frequently asked of wayward children or oft-injured adults. But when asked of the Fuckhead, the answer is always, “No.” The Fuckhead does not learn.
“Why must you come where you’re not wanted?” This question has been asked of the socially deviant and challenged since the dawn of time. Yet the Fuckhead will keep coming back, over and over again.
The Fuckhead will defend his or her inflexibility by saying, “I have every right to my opinion,” and “I have every right to participate in this discussion.” And, in the egalitarian world of IRC and Usenet, the Fuckhead is correct. But the Fuckhead will find that other participants, who do not appreciate the Fuckhead’s presence or contributions, will make use of tools such as “Ignore” commands or killfiles. These tools would not exist if it weren’t for the Fuckheads.
You can count on the Fuckhead to shriek “Censorship!” when you tune out their input. You can count on the Fuckhead saying rude things about you when he/she is sure you’re no longer listening. But it will never occur to the Fuckhead to approach topics and people differently, and never, ever occur to the Fuckhead to avoid venues where the atmosphere is unfriendly. This inability to exit gracefully is a distinguishing mark of a Fuckhead.
A Fuckhead Will Change His/Her Beliefs To Suit The Situation
Fuckheads are dedicated to one cause, furtherance of self; and they are committed to only one opinion, superiority of self. All other causes and opinions are secondary to the Fuckhead. The non-Fuckhead may change his/her opinions from time to time, or support or abandon causes throughout life, these changes usually come about when new information is learned, or when circumstances change. The Fuckhead, however, changes opinions and causes as readily as a non-Fuckhead might change shirts.
A good example of this change of opinion was shown by a notorious net Fuckhead in relation to a specific issue. Originally, the Fuckhead held that unsolicited commercial e-mail was evil and a nuisance. The Fuckhead put himself on the record as holding that opinion on more than one occasion. However, when the Fuckhead and his Web site were dismissed from one ISP after another for rules violations, the only ISP left over which would host the Fuckhead’s Web page was a widely-reviled purveyor of unsolicited commercial e-mail. The Fuckhead then, as circumstances dictated, reversed his opinion on UCE and became a booster of that method of advertisement.
Fuckheads change friends as needs dictate, aligning themselves with and against other Fuckheads seemingly without regard to history or common sense. In fact, it is not uncommon for Fuckheads to be at war in one Usenet newsgroup and aligned in another. Rational people may agree to disagree, but the Fuckhead’s limited focus and lack of loyalty allow the Fuckhead to fight with friends and agree with foes so readily that there is almost no distinction between the two. But this changeability makes the individual an unworthy foe and an untrustworthy ally — and hence, a Fuckhead.
What Makes a Fuckhead?
The Fuckhead may display all of these characteristics, or some of them, or only one. Some may love a Fuckhead like a brother, some may think their brother is a Fuckhead. What is incontrovertible is that for all of humanity, there are people that you would rather not have to deal with, and those people, throughout history, are the Fuckheads.
Charlie Brooker has been providing scathing and satirical insights into the twisted machinations (oh, how I love that word) of the media since, well, whenever he started doing it. Below, see him lay into television news with, um, scathing and satirical insight.
( via 23narchy in the uk. )
Several dozen moons ago my friend Matt would often clue me into the latest of Mr Brooker’s brilliant Guardian column Screenburn, in which he takes a rusty hacksaw to the banality of television and dismembers it’s corpse with disturbing glee. You can find an archive of the column here.
Below, an excerpt from his latest piece where he goes to town on vapid and soul-destroying ITV dating show ‘Take Me Out’, something which I was planning to do myself, offering a poor facisimile of his writing style, after accidently catching the opening credits and first 30 seconds. Thank fuck I don’t have to now, because it would of actually involved having to watch it.
Anticipation is everything. If someone tells you to close your eyes and open your mouth while they feed you a slice of the most delicious chocolate gateau you’ll ever encounter, only to spoon a pawful of dead mashed mouldering cat on to your tongue, chances are you’ll vomit. You’d vomit anyway, of course, but the contrast between what you were expecting and what you actually got would make you spew hard enough to bring up your own kidneys.
This also works in reverse. Over the past few weeks, several people have emailed imploring me to watch Take Me Out (Sat, 8pm, ITV1), ITV’s new Saturday night dating show. They described it using the sort of damning language usually reserved for war crime tribunals at the Hague. I rubbed my hands together, like a sadist approaching a car crash, settled in to my sofa and watched an episode. And you know what? It’s not bad.
Okay, it is bad, obviously, but only if you compare it to something worthy or suave or less shrieky. On its own terms, as a raucous chunk of meaningless idiocy, it succeeds.
( read the rest of that column here )
But Brooker is no mere columnist, oh no, for surely that would be a waste of his talents. He created the brilliant zombie/big brother parody/horror/drama (the reality show, not the orwellian concept of surveillance society) Dead Set, which was screened over 5 consequitive nights on E4 in the UK. I actually tuned in eagerly for every single part, which is a rare occurance indeed. He only wrote the first episode though.
He’s also worked quite extensively with another british satirical genius Chris Morris, co-writing the absolutely hilarious satire of London media-type assholes, Nathan Barley. The show featured alot of the Mighty Boosh/IT crowd bunch and was no only insanely quotable, piss-yourself funny and largely ignored, It also managed to ring disturbingly true, as if this was what these people are like in their vapid cocoon of popular-culture and fad fed idiocracy. For weeks after seeing it on DVD I had nightmares that I would become one of these people. I still fear that I will wake up one day and, finding this to be true, ride my miniscooter screaming under a double-decker bus.
A click from episode 5 of deadset:
And the only two clips from nathan barley that I could find that hadn’t had embedding disabled by request. It’s worth a trip to youtube to check out the other stuff though. There are whole episodes to be seen in bite sized parts.
Hot on the heels of the story in Publisher’s Weekly that “publishers could be losing out on as much $3 billion to online book piracy” comes a sudden realization of a much larger threat to the viability of the book industry. Apparently, over 2 billion books were “loaned” last year by a cabal of organizations found in nearly every American city and town. Using the same advanced projective mathematics used in the study cited by Publishers Weekly, Go To Hellman has computed that publishers could be losing sales opportunities totaling over $100 Billion per year, losses which extend back to at least the year 2000. These lost sales dwarf the online piracy reported yesterday, and indeed, even the global book publishing business itself.
From what we’ve been able to piece together, the book “lending” takes place in “libraries”. On entering one of these dens, patrons may view a dazzling array of books, periodicals, even CDs and DVDs, all available to anyone willing to disclose valuable personal information in exchange for a “card”. But there is an ominous silence pervading these ersatz sanctuaries, enforced by the stern demeanor of staff and the glares of other patrons. Although there’s no admission charge and it doesn’t cost anything to borrow a book, there’s always the threat of an onerous overdue bill for the hapless borrower who forgets to continue the cycle of not paying for copyrighted material.
To get to the bottom of this story, Go To Hellman has dispatched its Senior Piracy Analyst (me) to Boston, where a mass meeting of alleged book traffickers is to take place. Over 10,000 are expected at the “ALA Midwinter” event. Even at the Amtrak station in New York City this morning, at the very the heart of the US publishing industry, book trafficking culture was evident, with many travelers brazenly displaying the totebags used to transport printed contraband.
As soon as I got off the train, I was surrounded by even more of this crowd. Calling themselves “Librarians”, they talk about promoting literacy, education, culture and economic development, which are, of course, code words for the use and dispersal of intellectual property. They readily admit to their activities, and rationalize them because they’re perfectly legal in the US, at least for now.
Go to the full article of more of this scathing satirical scribbling!
<< via >>
ANGEL FOOD CAKE.
– – – –
1. Allow the angel to reach room temperature. Then kill it.
2. Kill God. Set Him aside.
3. Preheat the oven to 375 degrees.
4. Ecstatically whip, as if possessed by a storm-wind of freedom, 1-1/2 cups of excellent egg whites with 1/4 tsp. salt and 1-1/2 tsp. cream of tartar. Continue until peaks are as if raised to their own heights and given wings in a fine air, a robust air.
5. Gradually add 3/4 cup sugar, about 3 tbsp. at a time.
6. You are brilliant.
7. Now, add 1 tsp. vanilla and 1/4 tsp. almond extract, and then sift together 1-1/4 cups flour and 3/4 cup sugar.
8. Blend in God and the angel. Emboldened, add the egg mixture.
9. Gaze into the überbatter. The überbatter will gaze into you.
10. While prancing about in a frenzy of self-satisfaction and anticipation, use a rubber scraper to push the überbatter into an ungreased 10″ tube pan, for it is destined to be there.
11. Bake on a lower rack until done, usually 35-40 minutes, while reciting to the upper rack a long, convoluted anecdote about your childhood.
12. Invert the tube pan over a bottle for a few hours. Then impetuously rap the pan. Shout, “Aha!” and slide a knife along the pan’s insides.
13. Call what tumbles out a cake if you dare. Call it miraculous even.
14. Eat it. It is delicate, morbid, loveable, and you will die depressed, delirious, and overweight.
Nietzsche’s Angel Food Cake By Rebecca Coffey
Great Moments in Sports, Which, Had They Involved Me, Would Not Have Been Such Great Moments By Frank Ferri
A Few Words Regarding My Recent Appearances on Maury By Jesse Adelman
The Gospel According to His Good Friend Dennis By Rich Cohen
Mom Takes Children’s Songs Literally By Sarah Schmelling
– – – –