home authors guest shorts graphical shorts
Professionally attired, voice buttered, playlist sculpted, Bob “The Bobber” Buckman, Central Pennsylvania’s premiere reception/events DJ, was in the zone.
The Bobber communed with the music: Punctuate the ancient ritual with Diana Ross and Lionel Rithcie’s “Endless Love.” Back to the party with Bachman-Turner Overdrives “Takin’ Care Of Business.” Slow it down with Chicago’s “You’re the Inspiration.”
He was a conductor arranging a symphony of emotion, and the limbic systems of Mr. and Mrs. Chris Tullwilligers wedding party were his orchestra.
He was dizzy with power. He was in control. He had his manicured Djing finger pressed on their Heschl’s gyruses. He turned them on and off. He made them laugh and cry. He could make them "Twist" as easily as he could make them waltz. He sodomized their imaginations with the “Hokey-Pokey.”
But “The Bobber” wasn’t like some of his competitors in the Central Pennsylvanian reception/event circuit. He understood with great power comes great responsibility.
He ferried his clients across a Freudian mind field during the bride/Father groom/Mother dance with the Kenny Rogers “Through the Years” and the Beatles “Remember” respectively. He negotiated the delicate diplomacy of familial fealty with the “Cha-Cha Slide.” Now it was time for sweet release. He slipped on the Isley Brothers’ “Shout.” These folks had earned it.
He watched with the satisfaction of a father watching his child take its first steps as both families assembled on the dance floor, throwing their hands in the air with each refrain.
Now wait a minute!
The only thing harshing on The Bobber’s buzz was what he did back in the motel room.
A little bit softer now…little bit softer now…
Usually, a flawless gig would quiet any misgivings. But something inside created a disquieting dissonance. It wasn’t so much a voice, as an aberrant melody, a rapid tempo.
A little bit louder now…little bit louder now…
He suddenly felt scared. The right side of his head throbbed. He stared at the bar longingly.
Hey hey hey hey!
He needed a drink.
Hey hey hey hey!
Date Written: March 21, 2004Comments:
Average Vote: 4.2
03/25/2004 John Slocum (5): Lovely, The Bobber is a much needed hero in this dark time of the 9/11 commission hearings. My own life is now inextricably intertwined with The Bobber's and I want to know what happens next.
03/25/2004 Craig Lewis (5): The Beatles never recorded a song called "Remember." Did the author mean "Yesterday"? Or possibly "Remember '71," on Grobschnitt's Die Grobschnitt Story, Vol. 2? Otherwise great.
03/25/2004 Benny Maniacs (4):
03/25/2004 Moe-Ron (5): In true The Lerpa style, I'll give you a five, but scold you for making me read a semi-longish short.
03/25/2004 Benny Maniacs: I wish I could change that to a three now. This doesn't really go anywhere, it just sort of lists cheesy songs with a bit of sarcastic nostalgia. Well written though.
03/25/2004 qualcomm (4): yeah, barely a four. too easy a target, even easier than retards, who are a nationally protected species. only thing that saved it for me was whatever it was that happened back in the motel room. shame on doula for her tribal 5.
03/25/2004 qualcomm: three, i shoulda given this a three. lewis, this will make great fodder for that paper about you i'll never write.
03/25/2004 Moe-Ron: i anticipate your shame The Lerpa. and why didn't you give it a three if you thought it deserved it? What do you think this is a Danko short or something?
03/25/2004 qualcomm: no, i just changed my mind after voting and a re-read.
03/25/2004 anonymous: The Lerpa: Why 3? Because of the easiness of the target? Maybe the goal is to give people who are usually easy targets some inner life? Easy targets? Come on. In this ironic house of mirrors what isn't an easy target? Powerpoint guys? Rape vcitims? The hnead of Central American Finanacial Risk Assessment at Kemper Peat MArwick Group? Go tank my other shorts to make up for your mistake, Cahmp. And Maniacs: Where do you want it to go? To the end of a well-structured three-act conclusion, replete with Syd Field denoument? I didn't realize good shorts had to have a destination. And sarcastic nostalgia -- huh?
03/25/2004 qualcomm: well, "easy target" isn't exactly accurate, as my self-deprecating retard comment indicated. it's more of a combination of easy target and the narrator's too-overt contempt for said target. i mean, we all know wedding dj's are lame.
03/25/2004 qualcomm: yeah, the sarcasm, like maniacs said. the tone is too sarcastic for such an obvious target, that's what a fella meant to say.
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow (1): They don’t have to have a destination. They just have to be surprising, imaginative, funny or unpredictable in some way. Three stars minus two to counter those ridiculous fives. I think The Lerpa’s criticism of this as an easy target hold’s weight. I hear what you’re saying about giving an easy target inner life and there is a certain amount of interest in seeing this material from his POV. But the fact is, that this short relies on song references and the cheesiness of party DJs for most of its jokes. And that’s just not surprising or fresh in any way. Sorry for the one star; this short doesn’t deserve it. But it certainly doesn’t deserve all of those fives either.
03/25/2004 mr.coffee (5): I truly enjoyed this little short. Here we have a boring party DJ, and his equally monotonous commmute, turn into this master manipulator, drunk on his own power! Perhaps the same power he used back in the motel room to perform whatever deed it was. Now its come to haunt him at the height of his dancefloor machinations.
All in all a well writen little piece. I like it because, unlike many of the other shorts I've read here, its almost melodious. The mere fact that he needs a drink at the end, makes me think back to what evil was performed inside that motel room [a seedy, dingy, sordid room at that].
03/25/2004 Moe-Ron: Yeah, author, you could have made it at least as clever, amusing and unpredictable as this short which clearly deserved all its 5-stars.
03/25/2004 mr.coffee: whoa...I detect much sarcasm...'cause that short was exactly the kind of self masturbatory writing that I've come not to enjoy.
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow: Thanks, mr. coffe, whoever you are, for explaining what kind of "self masturbatory" writing you've "come not to enjoy." Moe-ron, you’re out of your mind. I’ve written my fair share of mediocre shorts, but that one is near-perfect. Sorry to criticize your scoop's short, but I’m just calling it like I see it. I don't think it's his best effort.
03/25/2004 Craig Lewis: Just for the record: I'm pretty sure Mr. Coffee objects not just to self-masturbatory writing, but ALL forms of auto-autoerotica.
03/25/2004 mr.coffee: Who am I!
Who are you?
What does it matter?
I was actually refering to your short, the one Moe-Ron posted a link to.
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow: No shit, mr. coffee. That was clear. It's also now clear that you are scoop. Again, sorry for the one star. Maybe it was too harsh, but I was just voting honestly, buddy.
03/25/2004 anonymous: Clear how? How did I give myself away?
03/25/2004 anonymous: Sorry, how did I give myself away, buddy.
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow: By posting on this short as mr. coffee by mistake, buddy.
03/25/2004 mr.coffee: ME...Scoop??!!!
Sorry pal, I can only aspire to be in the same class as Scoop. I am merely the toilet paper Scoop uses to wipe his ass with.
03/25/2004 Mr. Pony: That's stupid. Scoop would never stoop to using a fake identity.
03/25/2004 Mr. Pony: That's some pretty flimsy evidence. Why doesn't he say "too easy," then in keeping with the rant?
03/25/2004 anonymous: Aw man, Inspector Snow solved the case! Your in for a promotion! Buddy!
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow: I call for a time of healing and reconciliation (except with Lewis). I think today has taught us some valuable lessons about anonymity in the digital age. Pony, Danko, and now Scoop have all been found out! I'm sure this means something important about something or other.
03/25/2004 Jon Matza (4): Author: your detractors are concentrating too much on target and not enough on target audience.
03/25/2004 mr.coffee: Snow, stop talking out of your ass!
03/25/2004 Mr. Pony: Danko? Who's Danko pretending to be? That guy who keeps coming on to me?
03/25/2004 Dylan Danko: Don't be coy. You damn well know his name! Stop blushing!
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow: make me!
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow: (that was to mr. coffee)
03/25/2004 scoop: Clearly, if one were to take Occam's Razor to this knotted beard and shaved away the thick matted clumps of hair one would find the baby-faced truth that I in fact created a separate identity at a separtate IP address, invented the name mr. coffee, and then in an act of post-modern duplicity began commenting primarily on my own shorts, or shorts of someone who is clearly a friend of mine on this site, Mr. Pony., to deflect attention from the fact that mr. coffee is my secret identity, and then gave five stars to a short i gave four to when itcame out. I applaud Snow for getting to this simple truth, instead of being duped by the possibility someone liked the short and thought it was funnny.
03/25/2004 Dylan Danko: SAY HIS NAME, PONY!!! SAY IT!!
03/25/2004 Mr. Pony: I...
03/25/2004 mr.coffee: I wonder, SNOW, if by some chance, you enjoy having objects put into your ass, or having people do things to your ass? In some of your shorts you make clear references to this. One that comes to mind is "General Choade spent the afternoon". It is but one example amongst many. And please don't take this as a flame, it is simply an observation.
03/25/2004 Dylan Danko: Too late anyway, Pony. I already came.
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow: Scoop, obviously many people liked this short and thought it was funny. Are you actually angry at me for giving it a low vote? If so, I apologize, I was just speaking my mind and not intending to insult. It still has an above-four rating, so what’s the big deal? As for the mr. coffee thing, I thought you already admitted to being him. Were you being ironic? Are you really not mr. coffee? If not, again, my apologies. And mr. coffee, if you are not scoop, as he now claims, F you. Otherwise, see above.
03/25/2004 scoop: Not insulted. Not a big deal. Nor am I mr. coffee. I'm not sure exactly why you thought I was him in the first place. Just a little annoyed at what I feel is intellectual dishonesty to give what this short "deserves" as to what it earned in the messy world of conflicting opinions. I deeply detest Platonic thought, and all of its pseudo facist cousins. If you thought this short is a one, fine. While I admire and value your judgement, if you think its a one, then so be it. But by your own admission you thought it was a three, nevertheless gave it a one. Annoying. It's not the numbers, its the principle.
03/25/2004 Craig Lewis: Disney, why isn't this the latest controversy?
03/25/2004 scoop: Obviously, Lewis, because The Lerpa finds it stupid, so it doesn't rise to the level a " real" controversy.
03/25/2004 qualcomm: the lerpa doesn't generally designate controversies, asshole.
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow: Okay, fine. I'll refrain from deducting stars if I think a short has been overrated (or adding if I think it's been underrated). The reason I thought you were mr. coffee is because you went on a spree of giving one star votes to your own shorts. Then, mr. coffee did the same, so I assumed you were logged in as him by accident. mr. coffee is clearly one of us, and it’s not me. Strangely, he seemed to be getting angry at me the same time you were. But it was probably Danko, anyway.
03/25/2004 scoop: Coincidence. I think mr. coffee thought the short just sucked.
03/25/2004 Jon Matza: Aha...is it ethical to undervalue a short in order to bring its cumulative rating down to what you think it deserves? For my money, the philosophical issues raised by these arguments are among the a-list pleasures of acme.
03/25/2004 qualcomm: of course it's not unethical. you don't vote in a vacuum. is it unethical to vote for Al Gore in a swing state when you really want Nader?
03/25/2004 scoop: Is it ethical as a military leader to depose a democratically elected president because you feel the people mishandled their vote?
03/25/2004 qualcomm: that's a terrible analogy. the military leader is using overwhelming force. a voter on acme would only be exercising his single vote, like everyone else.
03/25/2004 scoop: It's a perfectly reasonable argument. This isn't a disagreement over degree, it's one of substance. The idea someone out there knows "the real truth" or "the best way" and just needs to make other people see it, carries with it a lot of dangerous philosophical side effects. The military leader coups a president because he knows what the people want better than they do. If I vote on a short to give it what I think it derves overall, I'm assuming that its score exists somewhere in Plato's cave in pure form, as opposed to something that is achieved by the normal cumulative result of noisy conversaiton and discussion.
03/25/2004 qualcomm: hmmm, interesting.
03/25/2004 John Slocum: Yah, I gave this short 5 stars. I enjoyed it, it was funny and clever. It was long but didn't seem so. I enjoyed the metaphor of the conductor and particulary enjoyed the inclusion of neuro-physiology. This and 'He was dizzy with power' and 'he sodomized their imaginations' were probably not used by lesser individuals who lazily took on an easy target. My point is, the target might be easy here, but the author attacks it with skill and art, like he (unless it's Jizzsome, then she) could do with a more difficult target.
03/25/2004 John Slocum: sorry to cut in
03/25/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum (4): Scoop, you make a good point. But your argument of principle would have carried more weight had you brought it up earlier. I don't think this is the first time a person has skewed his vote on the basis of what he considered overrating. Lerper over there has done it as well, yes? Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I'm voting three and a half stars. I think the set up is a little too long--even if there are some real gems in it, the SHOUT sequence is sublime, but I just didn't laugh and, therefore, I can't say this is a pure four.
03/25/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: Okay, someone is editing the comments, then.
03/25/2004 Ewan Snow: Scoop, I see your point. But, the difference The Lerpa points out between the analogies has something to it. It isn't similar to a military coup. All I was doing was voting. I wasn't voting twice with different usernames, or hacking into the database and changing other people's votes. It was merely the full application of the little bit of power a single vote has. It doesn’t imply my opinion is the real truth any more than holding any opinion implies that the holder believes it to be the truth. One knows when one votes that it is going to have some marginal effect based on the number and value of pre-existing votes. You’re saying that it’s dishonorable to make the decision as if applying game theory, that one should vote merely to express one’s evaluation rather than to influence the “game.” Okay, I can see that. But it doesn't seem any worse than giving five stars to Lewis' shorts in a (futile) attempt to piss me off. On the other hand, I can see why you'd be annoyed by my one star when I said it deserved three. I’m sure I would be annoyed too. But honestly, would you have objected as a matter of philosophical principal if you had received a bunch of ones and twos at first, then I came along and gave it a five because I thought it deserved a three?
03/25/2004 qualcomm: what are you talking about, jimson?
03/25/2004 scoop: I see what you're saying Jimson. My position may seem self-serving, but I never noticed the practice before. And that's not to say I would've intervened if I did. But I stand by it. History is littered with the corpses of those murdered by agents of the real truth who thought they were doing what was in their victims' best-interests.
Snow: Its hard to say for sure whether I would have reacted the same way. But I still would have objected on philosophical gorunds. Its the principle, not the numbers.
03/25/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: Lerp, you mean vote skewing or comment editing?
03/25/2004 Mr. Pony (5): This is probably more like a four, but I'm rounding up just because scoop had a tough day and I want him to be happy. Hi, scoop!
03/25/2004 Dylan Danko: I'll take it as fact but I'm amazed that Scoop never noticed the practice before
03/25/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: 3/16/[censored] 10:57:04 AM - The Lerpa (***): crony counter-vote
03/25/2004 Jimson S. Sorghum: I'm still not sure if that's what you meant, The Lerpa, but, there ya go.
And, as for comment editing, I guess the order just changes automatically sometimes when two comments are submitted simultaneously? I just noticed this phenomenon. My mistake.
03/26/2004 mr.coffee: Guys, for the record I am mr.coffee. I am an individual. I am not a 'non-de-guerre'. I am not affiliated with anyone on this forum, which by the way I find fantastic. Whoever designed and launched this site deserves many many stars. I hope this puts to rest any remaining thoughts that I'm scoop or anyone else for that matter. And for the record, I loved this short.
03/29/2004 Jon Matza: Mr. Decaf, more like. Where's the REAL Mr. Coffee?
03/29/2004 Jon Matza: Just kidding, pal.