Infidel on 21/10/2007 at 02:15
Quote Posted by fett
That's the entire point Zyme - they *didn't* have sarcasm or irony back then. Any basic public speaking or communications class covers the topic of 'knowing your audience' and the number one rule for speaking to people in the 65+ bracket (at this point in history) is absolutely no sarcasm, exaggeration, or irony.
Or maybe you think you are sarcastic, exaggerating and ironic, but in reality fail at it.
Quote:
They either don't get it, think you're a smart ass, or take you literally. I realized this about 4 years ago, started communicating differently with my older relatives who thought I was a jackass, and it changed the entire tone of our relationships.
Your relatives are hardly representative of an entire generation. If your granddad is an 85 year old former truck driver he will have as many problems understanding the refineries of language as a 35 year old truck driver.
Quote:
The reason it's so easy to create camp from 50's media is because no one portrayed as doing or saying anything contrary to popular opinion. Irony, sarcasm and cynicism took root in the late 60's with the counter-culture movement, Vietnam, JFK assassination, and Watergate. Those qualities are the result of suspicion of the establishment, which simply didn't exist by and large in the 50's. Viewed in retrospect, there was a lot of manipulative, socially evil shit going down in the 30's, 40's and 50's that the general public didn't know or speak out about because they were too fucking polite and trusting - just like the folks on Father Knows Best and Leave it to Beaver.
Have you ever read any of John Steinbeck's novels and discovered their social criticism? Or a novel by Dashiell Hammett and seen how he took the criminal genre to a form of art and yet keeping a direct, street language? Have you ever watched a Marx Brothers movie and were amazed by the "verbal machinegun" Groucho was?
Quite a while back I saw a documentation about a man that for over 40 years designs perfumes. He was asked what had changed in tastes over time and replied that when he started, people wanted refined fragrances that took time to develop their scent and be discovered. These days people want the full scent to immediately hit them in their noses.
And in my opinion this can be generalized to many other aspects of our lives, especially to language. It is my experience, quite contrary to yours, that the younger the people the less they are able to understand irony. Not hard-hitting sarcasm, just irony. The gentle mocking not quite out there to hurt. To how many under 30 would I have to explain the wit of the Groucho Marx' line:
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."
Gingerbread Man on 21/10/2007 at 03:02
what the fuck
half you goblins were around in the 80s didn't you even read the fucking thread title
Infidel on 21/10/2007 at 06:32
Well, nobody came along who wasn't around in the 80s, so we started talking about the 50s, when we weren't around.
BrokenArts on 21/10/2007 at 11:18
You are sooo sure about that hmm?
fett on 21/10/2007 at 15:15
Quote Posted by Infidel
Or maybe you think you are sarcastic, exaggerating and ironic, but in reality fail at it.
Irony and sarcasm have very little to do with attempting to be funny, but rather approaching a subject through the back-door or opposite viewpoint. Again, let me recommend a Communications 101 class. You can just audit it if you're broke. ;)
Quote Posted by Infidel
Your relatives are hardly representative of an entire generation. If your granddad is an 85 year old former truck driver he will have as many problems understanding the refineries of language as a 35 year old truck driver.
Didn't say they were - I was just using a personal example. Let me be more specific. I've given presentations for almost 15 years to a mix of age-groups, including this generation in every setting from community centers, to colleges, to churches, in over 27 states and 5 different countries. I've interacted with them in a wide variety of contexts, from interviews, to handling finances, to editing and compliing manuscripts for autobiographies and historical commentaries. THE
MAJORITY DON'T APPRECIATE IRONY.
Quote Posted by Infidel
Have you ever read any of John Steinbeck's novels and discovered their social criticism? Or a novel by Dashiell Hammett and seen how he took the criminal genre to a form of art and yet keeping a direct, street language? Have you ever watched a Marx Brothers movie and were amazed by the "verbal machinegun" Groucho was?
Yes, yes, and yes. And if you're stupid enough to think communicating like Steinbeck and Marx is acceptable in normal conversation to that generation, you've clearly had very little interaction with them. You're pointing to entertainment, which - at least for that generation - is a piss poor example of how the common person communicates/communicated. Hell, the same is true today. Do you actually sit around a coffee shop having conversations like the ones you see on sitcoms? Why was Borat so outrageous? Because people don't so and say those things in
normal conversation. Pointing to Groucho and Steinbeck as examples of how people communicated in the 50's is like trying to convince me that life in the 00's is like Big Brother or How I Met Your Mother. Please.
For the 290,485th time, I'm NOT saying the NO ONE in their 80's get's irony and sarcasm, only that as a whole, it was not a common form of communication or entertainment. I'm not making a sweeping generalization in an attempt to paint them as stupid or boorish.
Infidel on 21/10/2007 at 19:44
Quote Posted by fett
Irony and sarcasm have very little to do with attempting to be funny, but rather approaching a subject through the back-door or opposite viewpoint. Again, let me recommend a Communications 101 class. You can just audit it if you're broke. ;)
Having studied psychology and now teaching it, there is a possibility I might be giving the lecture.
Quote:
Didn't say they were - I was just using a personal example. Let me be more specific. I've given presentations for almost 15 years to a mix of age-groups, including this generation in every setting from community centers, to colleges, to churches, in over 27 states and 5 different countries. I've interacted with them in a wide variety of contexts, from interviews, to handling finances, to editing and compliing manuscripts for autobiographies and historical commentaries.
And it was always you who interacted with them. So if there is one constant variable which may be at fault as well, it is you.
Quote:
Yes, yes, and yes. And if you're stupid enough to think communicating like Steinbeck and Marx is acceptable in normal conversation to that generation, you've clearly had very little interaction with them. You're pointing to entertainment, which - at least for that generation - is a piss poor example of how the common person communicates/communicated.
No, entertainment, as you call it, is quite a valid example. For an entertainer to be successful, he needs an audience that understands him. My examples were quite sucessful in their fields.
And it was you who brought up entertainment as an indicator. Why it is as such not appropriate for earlier generations, as you say, eludes me. Maybe you care to explain that.
Quote:
Hell, the same is true today. Do you actually sit around a coffee shop having conversations like the ones you see on sitcoms? Why was Borat so outrageous? Because people don't so and say those things in
normal conversation. Pointing to Groucho and Steinbeck as examples of how people communicated in the 50's is like trying to convince me that life in the 00's is like Big Brother or How I Met Your Mother. Please.
You miss the point. The basic difference between our society today and back then is that a lot of refinement has been lost. In the modern sitcoms you herald as epitome of the sophisticated humor filled to the brim with complicated irony and wit which, according to you, we have only reached because of a cultural breach in the 60s, recorded laughter has to be used to cue people in on when to laugh and the displayed humor is mostly just brash and right in the face.
I said it before and repeat it now: Your average truckdriver back then and now won't understand sophisticated humor. The difference is that we now have a much larger percentage in the population with the mindset of a truckdriver.
Quote:
For the 290,485th time, I'm NOT saying the NO ONE in their 80's get's irony and sarcasm, only that as a whole, it was not a common form of communication or entertainment. I'm not making a sweeping generalization in an attempt to paint them as stupid or boorish.
No, you said exactly that,
Quote Posted by fett
That's the entire point Zyme - they *didn't* have sarcasm or irony back then.
and now you are backpedaling.
Drazur on 26/10/2007 at 07:14
By Rich Fulcher's Little Blue Pants, this has possibly been my favourite thread of all time! From anywhere, ever! (And I'm a huge cotton fan! - no, not really.)
My sincere thanks to all involved!
I mean, it has it all:
Crossed-Wires!
Rants about the young!
Rants about the old!
The call for linguistic purity!
The vote for linguistic freedom!
Romance! (I'm listening to NIN's 'Closer' - which, IMNSHO, counts :devil: )
My head is full! (I'm not sure what of...) ;)
Zyme: From what I've read, you are (basically) actually being agreed with! I'm fairly certain we're all on the same team here.
Please try to understand that "Fuck Off And Die" (in this particular situation, anyway...) actually means:
"Whilst I understand & respect your point of view, I will act & speak in a manner that befits my life - not yours - because I am the one that will need to deal with my life. Also, I wish to express that I will not be bullied into changing my language - and by extension, myself. Furthermore, if someone can't understand these very basic concepts, it is not my repsonsibility to explain it to them."
Even I must appreciate the economical word usage in "Fuck Off And Die."
(Also, I may be wrong. :idea: )
I hate the corruption of language as much as you, but you can't stop rock'n'roll. The frustration that you feel is (probably) the awareness that people seem to make communication much more ambiguous - or even less efficient - than is needed. Guess what? People don't have to be perfect, or even friendly (for that matter). They don't even have to try!
Yes, it sucks - other peoples' refusal to adhere to basic linguistics just makes everyone's life (including their own!) harder. That's my belief, anyway. But, it is neither my 'call', nor my responsibility to tell people how to speak.
Although, I wish it was - I would pay BIG money to hear 10 of my fellow Tasmanians in a row pronounce the word 'Asterisk' correctly. ('Oh, I got confused with that little comic guy. That thing? * I just call it a star.' I probably would too, if I had all the verbal discipline of a ventriliquist's mannequin sitting on top of an industrial strength air-conditioning unit...) Also, a goodly 30% of my fellow Tasmanians pronounce the word 'ask' thusly: 'Arcs'. NO, I'M NOT JOKING :mad:
IMHO, I think that the simple fact of the matter can be summed up thusly: 'The difference between corruption and evolution is determined by how I feel about the changes that have happened.'
In this example 'corruption' = 'perceived negative change', and 'evolution' = 'perceived positive change'.
(I do not mean 'Evolution' - This thread has already avoided at least one religious debate - let's keep it up, eh?)
A simplified version might be: "Change is Change.".
Or, better yet: "Change is.".
Thanks again, everyone. Nice Thread! :thumb:
fett on 26/10/2007 at 12:17
Quote Posted by Drazur
(I do not mean 'Evolution' - This thread has already avoided at least one religious debate - let's keep it up, eh?)
NONO NO GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IT FUCK OFF AND DIE.
Vivian on 26/10/2007 at 14:20
Technically, this means god personally coined all phrases such as 'piss-soaked cockshitter', is that correct?
Matthew on 26/10/2007 at 14:36
And indeed, 'greasy cocks'.
