home authors guest shorts graphical shorts
My bland expression belied the emotional turmoil roiling in my thorax. How could I not be excited by the sports contest I was witnessing? The opposing teams were evenly matched, and you couldn't help but wonder who would score more points by placing the official ball in the designated location(s).
Nevertheless, I remained seated and silent, want though I did to join in on "the wave" after Craig Nettles fired the ball behind his back and between his legs to Meadowlark Lemon. It was an amazing display of teamwork and athleticism. Only a few people in the world could have performed that physical act. I brushed aside as cynical the passing thought that my cousin Richie is probably one of the only people in the world who can squirt tears out of his eyes like a fountain, but that no one pays for tickets to see that, or even really cheers about it when he does it or anything.
How could I even consider such blasphemy in the midst of witnessing Hernan Crespo break Honus Wagner's all-time rushing record? My heart raced as the final seconds of the third period ticked down. I couldn't wait to discuss the many important plays with my friends and colleagues. How would each player's performance in this particular scrum affect his overall statistics?
Date Written: May 18, 2005Comments:
Average Vote: 3.5
06/1/2005 Jon Matza (4.5): This short contains numerous factual errors, an unclear grasp of the fundamental rules and jargon of several games and posits actual players from different eras and sports (including at least one dead individual) playing together on the same field simultaneously. As a careful reader and avid sports fan I am forced to ask myself: Is the narrator truly as much of a fan of athletics as he is purporting to be?
06/1/2005 Will Disney (4): written by a true fan, obviously.
06/1/2005 Will Disney: eliza: you still there?
06/1/2005 Eliza (): Is that okay with you?
06/1/2005 Will Disney: You bet it is, baby.
06/1/2005 TheBuyer (4): This does for sports what Eyes Wide Shut did for group sex.
06/1/2005 Mr. Joshua (2): Brother, and Author, you are a faggot. Exceptional human accomplishments are impressive regardless of the particular skill on display. Only one man could have written "The Sound and the Fury", no? Does that put Faulkner on the same level as Richie, too?
The snobbery intellectuals show in denigrating athletic achievement is no less moronic than the anti-intellectualism of the athletic classes. It's time to outgrow the Snobs vs. Slobs paradigm. Revenge of the Nerds was made 20 years ago. Can't we all just get along?
06/1/2005 Will Disney: I agree with Joshua. Can I change my vote?
06/1/2005 anonymous: I don't know what you're talking about, Joshua. The narrator was excited by the sports match. Who wouldn't be? However, even if he weren't excited by the sports match, as you seemed to have read it, your critique would still hold no water. Would you have the same bad reaction against a short that makes fun of William Faulkner?
06/1/2005 anonymous: Also, here's a short making fun of blowjobs. You like blowjobs. Why don't you lowball that, too, you provincial cunt?
06/1/2005 Mr. Joshua: Z-Dog: Further perusal of this site has lead me to believe that you are the author of this short, and not QC, as I originally believed. As he is not a true sports fan, I took it at face value. IF this short was written by you, a man (assuming, of course, you have kissed the lips which do not speak) who is a TRUE SPORTS FAN, I hereby retract my comments/criticism.
06/1/2005 The Rid: It's so weird to not be on the front page anymore! But based on the quality of the two shorts today, it still feels Guest Month, so that's something.
06/1/2005 Dick Vomit: That last comment is about vagina!
06/1/2005 Dylan Danko: This is such an old joke I don't know what to do here.
06/1/2005 anonymous: But it's my old joke.
06/1/2005 Dylan Danko: yeah but that doesn't make it better. Seriously, you've done this so many times. Not saying it wasn't funny the first hundred. In fact, there are a few chuckles in here too.
06/1/2005 Mr. Joshua: So did QC take this from Z-Dog, or vice-versa? Or perphaps they both made important, but no longer identifiable contributions?
06/1/2005 Dylan Danko: Vice-versa, I believe. Perhaps, Snow was the originator though QC could shed some light on this.
06/1/2005 Mr. Joshua: So QC did write it?
06/1/2005 Dylan Danko: Given his knack for self promotion among other things, I assume so.
06/1/2005 Mr. Joshua: Well in that case, I encourage you to give it a low vote, Danko. And I retract my retraction.
06/1/2005 anonymous: Danko, I don't think I've ever done this on acme, have I?
06/1/2005 Dylan Danko: No, i don't think so. I can understand why someone who had never heard this particular joke of yours would find it funny. Making fun of team sports is a weekly thing with you so to see it here leaves me rather limp. Please remember your audience.
06/1/2005 Jon Matza: All I know's that the author's hypocrisy is staggering...
06/2/2005 qualcomm: incidentally, i'm not snobbish towards sports enthusiasts; i just think they're involved in another stupid, boring hobby, like collecting star wars action figures. that their hobby is patent: compare the average IQ of all the jerkoffs who have season tickets to their local college football team's games, and compare it that of the average person who has ever read the sound and the fury, let alone liked it. (let any people who fall into both categories be excluded from the comparison, for the sake of control.) i just did, in a little armchair "thought experiment," and the college football fans come out much stupider. once again, this does not make me snobbish; it just means i think sports fans are on average stupider than literature fans. (of course, comparing led zeppelin fans to sound and the fury fans would have similar results. i am comfortable with that.)
06/2/2005 qualcomm: correction: *that their hobby is stupid is patent*
06/2/2005 Mr. Pony: Oh yeah, well what happens when you compare collectors of Star Wars action figures with Zeppelin fans?
06/2/2005 Jon Matza: Are we talking Zoso-era Zeppelin fans or Presence-era Zeppelin fans?
06/2/2005 Mr. Pony: Perhaps we should make it fair and match Zoso-era fans with POTF-era fans.
06/2/2005 John Slocum: I enjoy the writing here, but this is a tepid idea, a tepid joke. It's not that funny. Also, on first inspection your comment of 6/2/2005 12:50:31 AM sounds good as far as a thought experiment, but interestingly, you seem to think up a conclusion to your thought experiment that supports the argument you're trying to make/manufacture.
06/2/2005 Dylan Danko: And why can't one be both a sports fan and a literature fan? Also, who cares about their IQ's! I would venture to say that many of the people collecting star wars action figures have high IQ's but here you lump them in with the football assholes. I also noticed that you picked the dumbest sport with the dumbest fans to make your point. What about Squash or Polo or even Team Handball? HUH????
06/2/2005 Dylan Danko: For the sake of control (QC's argument) let's just forget about those people who fall into both categories.
06/2/2005 qualcomm: i feel just the opposite, slocum. i think the idea is sterl and the writing's only so-so.
06/2/2005 John Slocum (3): We're gonna have to ag-dag this one (ie ag' to disag').Also, why haven't more people voted on this? Pony?
06/2/2005 Dylan Danko: Slocum, I'm not sure I understand. What does ag-dag mean?
06/2/2005 John Slocum: Dude, think about it.
06/2/2005 Dylan Danko: Yeah, that was a joke there little one.
06/2/2005 John Slocum: I know, but dude, think about it!
06/2/2005 Jon Matza: Sloc/qc: I'd be interested (seriously) to hear you two try to define what the "idea" or "joke" of this short is. I mean I think I know, and could take a crack at it myself...but I bet it's not as easy to put into words as (I suspect) you fellows assume (from the way you talk about "it"). I realize this may sound like a pointless exercise & wouldn't blame you for ignoring me...but I sense it would actually yield insights that'd handsomely profit acme entering Q2FY06...
06/2/2005 John Slocum: Will do anon, Peter.
06/2/2005 TheBuyer: Peter.
06/2/2005 Jon Matza: peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrr
06/3/2005 qualcomm: i will wait for slocum's (no doubt flawed) analysis.
06/3/2005 Dylan Danko: Hurry!
06/3/2005 Dylan Danko (3): I hate and love everything this short stands for. Therefore, 3 stars.
06/3/2005 Dylan Danko: Extra half star for bothering to ask Scoop Crespo's first name and what sport he plays.
06/3/2005 Jon Matza: qc: it'd be stouter to venture your own analysis w/out waiting for Slocum's. Right, Disney?
06/3/2005 qualcomm: but i feel confident slocum's opinion of this short is based on some faulty analysis, as it has been in the past.
06/3/2005 Jon Matza: So what's the correct analysis? Slocum'll admit if he misunderstood. Right Disney?
06/3/2005 Mr. Pony: Perhaps, qualcomm, you should start by suggesting what you believe Slocum's analysis to be!
06/3/2005 qualcomm: no i think the most double-blind way to do this is for him to go first. if i go first, slocum can surely say, 'yes, i understood all that,' whereas if he goes first, i can't make up some weird analysis just to make his reading look bad (not, at least, without everyone realizing i'm just making it up). dig?
06/3/2005 Dylan Danko: Matza, i don't think you're gonna get an answer from either of them.
06/3/2005 Jon Matza: My question isn't meant to determine who's right about the short's value, though. It's designed to elicit information that will allow the acme community to breakfast on the marrow of this particular comic trope-schtick that we may better pinpoint and refine our collective comic sensibilities. Therefore I was hoping you would each let your ego go and offer your respective interpretations of this cybertext...out of pure generosity of spirit.
06/3/2005 Jon Matza: (And so liberty dies to the sound of thunderous applause...)
06/3/2005 Jon Matza: Right, Disney?
06/3/2005 qualcomm: well, our interests are not in alignment. anyway, i'm sure slocum'll come around. he's probably busy injecting cru's wine with sulfides.
06/3/2005 scoop: ...and other molecular flavorcons.
06/3/2005 scoop: Dight Risney?
06/3/2005 John Slocum: Yah, uh...sulfides. How'd you know about that. Please everyone be patient, I'm busy, but eager to get to this. Right, Disney?
06/3/2005 Jon Matza: QC: what are your interests here? I mean, I'm not asking for your PIN number, sibling. I just wanted to hear your answer cause I'm interested to see what you'd say. Sakes alive! Correct, Bill?
06/3/2005 qualcomm: first off, let it be known that i am stricken with food poisoning today. i am pissing from my asshole and pooping from my mouthhole. i can't sit up for more than a few minutes at a time without the killing sickness' return, making me want to snuff it. that said, i believe if i put my own analysis down, it's bounnd to influence slocum's and i want to see how he experienced it on his own. now if you'll excuse me, i need to blow from my anus a substance having the consistency and color of honey mustard dressing.
06/3/2005 qualcomm: it hurts to pee.
06/3/2005 TheBuyer: That's vadge poisoning, my american cousin, you need a shot.
06/4/2005 John Slocum: AND NOW THE MOMENT EVERYONE'S BEEN WAITING FOR: SLOCUM'S ANALYSIS!!!!
This short asserts that sports are boring/unworthy. Phrases such as 'official ball,' and 'designated locations' serve to belittle, indicating that different sports have interchangeable aspects, doesn't really matter which one you're watching. The procession of figures from baseball, basketball and soccer (football), and jargon from football (american football), hockey (hockey football) and rugby (rugby football), all seemingly on the same team, support this perverted notion that one can simply substiture one sport for another. The idea of belittling sports is tepid.
This short also asserts that sports culture is simple/boring/unworthy. Hence your depiction of the idea of their running like simpletons to discuss plays and statistics or being momentarily excited by "the wave." (quotation marks to make it someting unnatural?).
One other "idea" here is the discrepancy between outside appearances and inner emotional experience (first sentence of each of the first 2 paragraphs). It's possible you're using this to sarcastically underscore the above ideas, to set off the narrator/author's boredom with sports/sports culture.
I would ammend my first comment (6/2/2005 3:18:24 AM ) to say the ideas here are tepid, since I was wrong about there being only one tepid idea. I still like the writing, though.
06/4/2005 John Slocum: Separately we can discuss what I think are the merits of sports. I believe I share your feelings about sports culture.
06/4/2005 Jon Matza: qc's silence would seem to indicate that he wholeheartedly agrees with every element of this analysis. I was expecting a more divergent viewpoint, Disney.
06/4/2005 Mr. Pony: I saw this thing way different from Slocum and qualcomm. I guess I'm not as smurt as I thought I was!
06/4/2005 John Slocum: How did YOU see it, Pony??!!!?? And how do you know how Qualcomm sees it?
06/5/2005 qualcomm: i shall respond within the forthour
06/5/2005 qualcomm: slocum, i think you and joshua took this as more of a partisan attack on sports culture than i intended. while sports and sports culture are certainly made fun of in this short, the narrator himself is also a laughable figure. he's sort of like this character that i, qualcomm, do in real life: when i hear someone talking about some specialized knowledge area, i try to "get in on it" with everything i know about that topic, making a sort of kitchen sink statement about whatever the subject might be. (eg, i just watched an automobile show about limited slip differentials, and i'll probably bring that up the next time i hear two genuine motorheads discussing their craft.) the purpose/intention of this gag is not simply to make fun of the specialized knowledge area, but to poke fun at my own complete lack of knowledge in that area; basically, to play the buffoon. does that compute? (i'm not saying i thought this all out beforehand, that's not how i operate; i'm just trying now to hindsightedly explore instinctive choices i made in the writing of this thing.) also, one final point: i think your and joshua's interpretation of this short as a partisan attack (from the snob camp, let's say) led you to be somewhat offended by it. in other words, you gave me a bad faith vote. how do you answer that, you fucking terrorists?
06/5/2005 qualcomm: furthermore, can you explain what you meant by tepid? cuz to me, it just sounds like a fancy, informed-sounding way to say bad.
06/5/2005 TheBuyer: The Lerpa makes an interesting, wrong point. More on that later, I have to be up in an hour and a half and get all beautiful.
06/5/2005 Dylan Danko: This is as uninteresting as most betvite bets.
06/5/2005 qualcomm: as acme's mascot, dylan, you shouldn't insult my product in front of the customers.
06/6/2005 Mr. Pony: Yeah, Dylan, quit insulting our mascot!
06/6/2005 qualcomm: man, has fatherhood made you bitter. and stupid.
06/6/2005 Mr. Pony: I don't need to take that crap from our mascot.
06/6/2005 qualcomm: turn around! your son is falling on his side!
06/6/2005 Mr. Pony: Put your helmet back on!
06/6/2005 John Slocum: glans helmet?
06/6/2005 Hitler: Whoa, guys. Take a chill pill. What's with all this negative mojo I'm feeling, like, from all over the place. It's Monday guys. A chance to start the whole week anew. Let's see a little less Sieg and a little more Heil.
06/6/2005 Jon Matza: qc: I (Matza) question your use of "bad faith" below. I mean, hypothetically, if someone's offended by something they probably didn't enjoy it, right? Voting based on non-aesthetic criteria (which is what you're accusing your detractors of here, right?) might be dishonorable, sugarfree, non-solvent, etc--but "bad faith" seems inaccurate in this 'text. That useful term should be reserved for alliance voting, gamesmanship voting, 'reverse' voting to express sarcastic contempt for a short and the like. In short, situations in which one's vote doesn't reflect one's reaction to the material.
06/6/2005 Dylan Danko: Matza, you mean like many of QC's votes?
06/6/2005 Dylan Danko: I thought The Lerpa is acme's mascot.
06/6/2005 Jon Matza: I'm not trying to single anyone out. My only concern here is keeping the language pure.
06/6/2005 qualcomm: matza: by bad faith, i meant something along the lines of when jimson 1-starred me for writing the fetus-fucking short. her rating had little or nothing to do with writing, and everything to do with her taking offense at the subject matter. same goes here for joshua and possibly, sloc.
06/6/2005 qualcomm: and that's the worst faith there is, 'you ask me.
06/6/2005 scoop: What about grody faith?
06/6/2005 Jon Matza: I believe you're talking about something besides faith, brother. In fact I suspect you have little respect/liking for faith. Not that you should. I'm just sayin'. (g)
06/6/2005 qualcomm: i agree that i misused "bad faith." i guess what i'm talking about is provinciality and/or thin skin. you are also correct that i have come to have little respect for faith-voting here on acme. this is because you, the other users, have let me down with your own bad-faith and more often, simply taste-errored, votes. shame.
06/6/2005 Jon Matza: Thanks to those who participated in this intellectual inquiry, which I feel has been both fruitful and wizza. All that remains (unless participants wish to make any further statement) is for the Buyer to explain how, and to what extent, qc was wrong.
06/7/2005 scoop: I am equally con-fucking-fused about the gay inner emotional exploration sparked by this short. Why is belittling sports tepid? It seems perfectly reasonable as a target. But a careful reading, even a sloppy one, would reveal that this isn't just a send up of sports and of the people who mock sports, but a dig at the mockers. I would think a sports fan would find this particularly funny since many of the details are so throughly gleefully wrong. Yes, it accrately inflates some of the more absurd behavior of the sports fan, but it does so while simultaneoulsy ridiculing the ridiculer. Then there is the simple organic humor of these ass holes names and the way the author mixes them together to hilarious results, such as, "How could I even consider such blasphemy in the midst of witnessing Hernan Crespo break Honus Wagner's all-time rushing record?" Not knowing how completely wrong that image is funny just by the sounds of the words. As a sports fan being able to envison makes it better.
06/7/2005 John Slocum: How gay was it?
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: I hate to bring this up now, but such for a ripoff-sensitive author the premise seems dangerously similar to those heartwarming recurring Calvin and Hobbes sequences where they play their own sport with their own everchanging rules, multiple balls, a boundary-free field, and so on. But it's definitely a cute enough idea to be worth recycling...
06/7/2005 qualcomm: and for you to 4.5, you fucking sucker!
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: Yes...I liked the creativity and playfulness of the piece, and I thought the author's willingness to open up and explore some of his emotions and vulnerabilities was very brave.
08/1/2005 Ewan Snow (4):
08/5/2005 qualcomm: this is what your sports does to the american family.