« A development warranting our immediate attention. | Main | Reprint of my 2006 Livejournal Down The Rabbit Hole Meme Thing. Stuff. Thing. »

Eric: A relevant quote

Data: If that subject troubles you–

Admiral McCoy
: Troubles me? What's so troublesome about not having died?

Posted by Eric Burns-White at January 27, 2006 9:59 AM

Comments

Comment from: Abby L. posted at January 27, 2006 10:03 AM

:) Hee. Although I don't know how relevant it is anymore. :(

Comment from: Doublemint posted at January 27, 2006 10:26 AM

Death in Star Trek? This calls for a Tasha Yar joke. Well... if there were any good ones.

Comment from: KennyCelican posted at January 27, 2006 10:51 AM

Undead and Unwed - MaryJanice Davidson

Well, you did indirectly ask what's so troublesome about not having died.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at January 27, 2006 10:58 AM

Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie,

A fish can't whistle, and neither can I.

Ask me a riddle, and I reply:

Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie.

Comment from: Benor posted at January 27, 2006 11:04 AM

That's it!

I need a staple gun, three otters, and the July 1967 copy of Playboy!

Comment from: KennyCelican posted at January 27, 2006 11:26 AM

Sorry man, got a staple gun, know the location of multiple copies of July 1967, and could probably beg borrow or steal one, but got no otters.

It's a book. Wherein the main character dies at the beginning. Roughly the first half of the story is her persistent attempts to correct the fact that she's still moving around. Hence, it's troublesome to her that she hasn't died.

I didn't think it was that obscure. Silly, yes. Obscure, no.

Comment from: yaJ posted at January 27, 2006 11:48 AM

If this is relevant in the way I think it's relevant (meaning I'm probably wrong), both you and I are in good company:
Thoughts on Mozart's Birthday

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at January 27, 2006 12:06 PM

Also, Lewis Carroll. Thus the "Rabbit Hole" stuff on Livejournal today.

And happy to you.

Comment from: Tephlon posted at January 27, 2006 1:06 PM

Off topic:

Is Wednesday turning off the comment option on purpose or is it an oversight (I've noticed that lately all Wednesday post do not have comments enables.)

Just wondering.

Comment from: otter posted at January 27, 2006 1:34 PM

I want no part of your staple gun madness.

Comment from: Trevor Barrie posted at January 27, 2006 1:47 PM

Since Wednesday does have comments turned off, I have to come here to say that the English-speaking needs to retaliate with Coca Cola Nwahr.

Comment from: Merus posted at January 27, 2006 6:03 PM

Clearly, Wednesday doesn't want people complaning that they see her and Eric as webcomics CNN or something. The 'or something' is my ass-covering clause!

Australia's big soft-drink war: no-sugar soft drinks. We are so behind.

Comment from: elvedril posted at January 27, 2006 6:31 PM

Mr. President, we must not allow a soft drink gap!

Comment from: Doc posted at January 27, 2006 6:40 PM

Interestingly I'm in Australia and worked for a market research company that did some focus grouping on coke black about a year ago so I'll be interested to see if it materialises here or not.

I believe Weds stopped having comments on her posts because there was almost always a post from one the dishrags that objected to her posting on general principle, but I could be totally wrong. I regret this because she tends to post stuff that would stimulate light hearted conversation. I guess there's always snarkoleptics and so on, but still.

Comment from: Tyck posted at January 27, 2006 7:29 PM

I was wondering why no comments. Then I realized the one about Plath and writing and depression and whatnot would almost certainly aggro up a drama train. So I started looking at the cola post, and that didn't look objectionable. Then I realized somebody would almost certainly show up who would focus only on the first paragraph and demand (or imply a demand) that Eric and Wednesday post about something going on in Webcomics, and we'd just get the "This is a personal blog, not Comixpedia. We do other things than comics. We've never made a secret of that." discussion again, and the comments would be closed anyway. Depression, man.

On a lighter note, has anybody tried the Black Cherry Vanilla? I've been giving it sidelong glances in the local store wondering whether it's worth trying.

Comment from: ormond_sacker posted at January 27, 2006 7:46 PM

I tend more towards Doc's theory, given the last several commentless Weds. posts (not counting the ghost-written one). Which is a shame, because I don't get to pontificate about juvenalia or tell about a recent accidental encounter with "hard root beer". Darn people, minorly inconveniencing me! Oh, and being creeps to Wednesday. But inconvenience!

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at January 27, 2006 11:18 PM

Otters, staple guns and Playboys? Wow, you guys play tame. I was thinking rabid puffin dingos, Pneumatic nailguns, and a lifesize poster of Diana Rigg, circa 1964.

Someone call Maritza, we're clearly violating copyright with this nonsense contest.

Comment from: Paul A. posted at January 28, 2006 12:27 AM

My guess is that Wednesday doesn't want to find out whether a discussion thread about soft drinks is considered to be an attempt to mess with the Google Ads.

It's people like that who make you realize how little you've accomplished. It is a sobering thought, for example, that when Mozart was my age... no, never mind. I'm not that old yet.

Comment from: Paul A. posted at January 28, 2006 12:32 AM

Let's try that again:

Thoughts on Mozart's Birthday

It's people like that who make you realize how little you've accomplished. It is a sobering thought, for example, that when Mozart was my age... no, never mind. I'm not that old yet.

Comment from: gwalla posted at January 28, 2006 2:25 AM

I would like to point out that Jolt beat both Coke and Pepsi to the hideous-coffee-cola punch years ago. ThinkGeek used to provide scheduled shipments.

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at January 28, 2006 2:42 AM

Speaking of relevant quotes, am I the only one here who has been hitting "refresh" for the last two hours, screaming at Websnark, "JESUS CHRIST YOU PEOPLE! HASN'T ANYONE THERE READ TODAY'S SOMETHING POSITIVE?"

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at January 28, 2006 3:31 AM

...Well, that was quick.

Comment from: Ardellis posted at January 28, 2006 7:50 AM

Yo, Eric! Hope it was a happy birthday. I am, of course, very pleased that you haven't died yet. On the other hand, if you're feeling old, I must be mumified by now, eh?

Yo, Eric! Hope it was a happy birthday. I am, of course, very pleased that you haven't died yet. On the other hand, if you're feeling old, I must be mumified by now, eh?

Yo, Eric! Hope it was a happy birthday. I am, of course, very pleased that you haven't died yet. On the other hand, if you're feeling old, I must be mumified by now, eh?

Yo, Eric! Hope it was a happy birthday. I am, of course, very pleased that you haven't died yet. On the other hand, if you're feeling old, I must be mumified by now, eh?

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at January 28, 2006 11:03 AM

Comments may or may not remain off. This is an experiment to gauge whether or not it creates a healthier writing environment for me to leave them off. I didn't feel it appropriate to ask unless and until it was clear anyone had even noticed, to be honest.

I was wondering why no comments.

there was almost always a post from one the dishrags that objected to her posting on general principle

The phrase "I'm not welcome in my own house" springs to mind quite often.

My work is of no value because it is not Eric's;

I don't get to pontificate[...]

or my work is of value only inasmuch as the space below it constitutes a platform for others;

Then I realized somebody would almost certainly show up who would focus only on the first paragraph and demand (or imply a demand) that Eric and Wednesday post about something going on in Webcomics[...]

am I the only one here who has been hitting "refresh" for the last two hours, screaming at Websnark, "JESUS CHRIST YOU PEOPLE! HASN'T ANYONE THERE READ TODAY'S SOMETHING POSITIVE?"

or my work is of no merit because it does not make time-sensitive observations about specific works which, ultimately, serve little purpose with regards to those works' fandoms (as they are already aware of what's just happened, and the significance thereof) and serve even less to nonreaders (as they lack prior context). Or, alternatively, simply because it frequently isn't about webcomics. (Ray, I'm sorry that I needed to use you as the active example here, since I know that you aren't making the value judgement by any means -- but others using your words have, and it seems the best illustration.)

And, half the time, if I have made the time-sensitive observation, it is of no value because, again, I am not my boyfriend.

I believe we've missed "I don't understand anything she ever says" -- my work is of no value because I am reportedly nonsensical, although repeated efforts to track and ameliorate the issue have met with behind-the-scenes assertions that this is not an issue.

There are other reasons; these are the most easily addressed without delving into personal matters which are plainly not of interest to the readership.

Ultimately, there are only so many times that I can be told that what I am and what I do are of no value, save in the light of my position as a quiet and supportive adjunct to my lover, with only minimal support and editorial assistance by way of contrast. I have a choice: I can bow to pressure, accept that my work is of no value, and disappear, or I can eliminate the very thing which leaves me spending hours a day throwing half-completed essays away because "no one cares" or "they'd rather hear it from Eric" or or "it'll just cause drama" or "it's not about webcomics", and perhaps one day *generate* something of value above and beyond what a group of regular posters seem to think of me.

My internal sorting mechanisms do not allow me to automatically discount destructive feedback; they do, however, allow me to restrict where I might come across it. Since I do not typically receive constructive feedback by alternative methods, I have to assume that there is no desire for its provision, and I am on my own.

As it stands, there is a perfectly useful and appropriate livejournal community (whose usage is well-documented) for other people to discuss those things they can't find here; generating a weblog is a five-minute process through multiple free and paid services; websnark has an email contact address. And LJ users will notice that comments cannot be closed on the feed.

If the desire is more for discussion than anything else, I would urge readers to take advantage of an alternative venue which might be more appropriate to the situation. As it stands, I don't believe that healthy and productive dialogue takes place in the comments space of anything that I post.

Comment from: Amadan posted at January 28, 2006 12:16 PM

If you want to be recognized for your own contributions, Wednesday, I think you'll have to find a venue to do it in other than one that has become popular and successful under someone else's banner. Regardless of the value of your writings, most of the people who come here come to read Eric. It's not so much that your contributions are of no value, but they aren't what people come here to read.

Don't misunderstand me -- I know it's yours and Eric's blog, and you are entitled to post anything you want, and I am not saying you should go away. But you seem to want to get the same sort of writer feedback Eric gets, and be recognized as an equal partner here.

I'm afraid you're never going to get warm fuzzies by being a co-author on someone else's coattails and then sobbing "Validate me, dammit!"

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at January 28, 2006 12:37 PM

You miss the point. That recognition will not take place in any form, so what I need to do is take a source of abuse out of my life so that I can write according to the only mandate which does matter.

Comment from: larksilver posted at January 28, 2006 12:54 PM

I noticed a while back that you'd stopped doing comments on your thread. I simply assumed, apparently correctly, that you didn't want to deal with the yuck that seems to follow your posts. I'm not sure if my comments here will help at all, but I am therefore going to say them anyway:

You're an integral part of this site now, ma'am. Please, please keep posting. Your writing style is different from Eric's but no less valid. It is not incomprehensible, if one is willing to slow down and actually read through what you have to say. When reading your essays, I experience something akin to watching a movie where the actors have a profound accent: it takes me a moment to absorb the accents until I stop hearing them anymore, if that makes any sense.

I know you're sensitive to the reaction of others when reading your work (who isn't, duh); if you'd rather not get that reaction, turn the damn comments off and just keep writing. It's worthwhile. It's interesting. And, as has recently been pointed out to me.. there's always snarkoleptics if we wish to make a comment. Or our own LJ's. Or you could do what we've done here and derail another thread to talk about it. ha!

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at January 28, 2006 1:04 PM

(Ray, I'm sorry that I needed to use you as the active example here, since I know that you aren't making the value judgement by any means -- but others using your words have, and it seems the best illustration.)

De nada, as I'm sure you know that I would crawl across broken glass to read your writing, were it not for the fact that all the attendant blood would probably mess up my keyboard real bad and anyway ewww. Or maybe ow.

And just in case I was unclear about the matter (desperation and clarity also being relative strangers to one another), the "YOU PEOPLE" I was screaming about were not you and Eric, but were, rather, the entire corpus of Websnark's readership. I did not expect that the mere presence of Breaking News would magically compel either of you to post an article about it; after all, at a minimum, you both have lives, and there's no reason to suppose that either of you are even necessarily awake or around the computer when any given newsworthy event transpires in Webcomicdom.

On ther other hand, the great nebulous cloud of Websnark readers who surround the site at all times have no such excuse, aside from their possible nonexistence; it was to them that I was screaming. I couldn't believe that Randy could drop a bomb like that without some reader commenting on it in the nearest available even remotely appropriate thread (and what thread more nearly appropriate, I figured, than one quoting a doddering and decrepit fictional character saying "What's so troublesome about not having died?").

Comment from: siwangmu posted at January 28, 2006 1:07 PM

I hope people go back and see this even with all the flood of stuff on the SP post, since they had been wondering about your reasons and here they are but in danger of being buried. Which may mean I'm subconsciously going "bump" like they do on forums, but if people don't see this they'll just be speculating later why you have comments turned off on some post, and nobody wants that.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at January 28, 2006 2:19 PM

I'm afraid you've rather elementally missed the point, Amadan.

It's not that Wednesday wants validation. It's that the commentary she gets is actively destructive.

Not from everyone, naturally. However, there were a few commenters who seemed to take an absolute delight in posting harsh comments on every single post Weds made.

Not useful harsh comments, mind. Comments that boiled down to "Wednesday sucks." Each and every time. We could practically set our watch to it. And no matter how she altered her posting style, she would get them. Apparently, two or three people think it's the height of wit to be astoundingly rude.

For those who don't know, we get e-mailed the comments made on our posts. Which means that any time Weds posted anything, about webcomics or not, funny or serious, as clear as she could make it or surreal, she would get a chunk of comments that boil down, semantically, to "you suck. Go away."

That's not Weds wanting to be Validated. That's Wednesday getting sharp negative reinforcement to the very act of posting, each and every time she did it. So instead of actually posting, she started writing essays, and immediately thinking "but everyone's just going to hate it."

Which, of course, they weren't. But that's the nature of destructive criticism. It swells in importance. It swells in context. Until finally, that's all a person can see.

So. She took a step to eliminate that venue. I supported her in that step. I still do. Because, see, I like her writing. I like it a lot. I liked it before I ever started Websnark. I invited her to be a part of Websnark before she and I ever became an item. Wednesday adds things to this place that I'm not capable of, she makes the whole better, and she increases my enjoyment.

If posting without a simple comment link makes this an environment she's more comfortable writing in, I'm entirely behind it, because it means I get to keep reading her writing. If folks want to comment privately, her e-mail is available on the site, and the Websnark e-mail address is available. If folks want to start a discussion on the topic, they can hit Snarkoleptics.

And if this means those few guys who want to spit out a "I hate Wednesday's writing" or "Jesus, she's incomprehensible" comment like clockwork on every one of her posts don't have a venue to do it in front of an audience?

Well, cry me a river, boys.

Comment from: Prodigal posted at January 28, 2006 3:03 PM

I was wondering about the lack of comment links myself, because some off-the-cuff comment would occur to me when one of her posts would appear, and the chance to say some variation on "Hey, nifty post" wasn't there.

Will use the email from now on, then.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at January 28, 2006 3:30 PM

If folks want to comment privately, her e-mail is available on the site, and the Websnark e-mail address is available.

In the past I've looked for an @ddress for Wednesday here and not found one. Just now, too. On the cast page the Websnark address appears only in your bio, which can give the impression that it's only for you.

Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at January 28, 2006 11:52 PM

I couldn't believe that Randy could drop a bomb like that without some reader commenting on it in the nearest available even remotely appropriate thread

For the record, I find such "post it somewhere anywhere OMG" comments just about as annoying as the "when are you going to comment on the OMG" comments.

What I don't get about those who would/do say that Weds' writing makes no sense: I don't get a few things that Weds writes in her more esoteric posts, sure. But I get the rest of it, including bits that I can recognize as being opaque to a lot of people who aren't me. So I assume, all parties involved being of presumably sound mind, that there *is* something there to get, and I simply don't have the background or the mindset for it.

Given this (IMO) easily grasped perspective, I cannot understand "what the heck are you talking about in the last paragraph? something about Beanie Babies?" comments. It's like hearing a word you've never heard before, spoken by someone who obviously has a terrific command of the English language, and still deciding that they must've made up the word.

(This, of course, is not directed as those who ask for clarification of essay portions in friendly manners.)

Comment from: ormond_sacker posted at January 30, 2006 12:53 PM

This is what I get for being away from the computer for a weekend, used as an anti-Wednesday spokesman. Listen, I like Wednesday╠s work. Quite a lot, actually, and if you╠re waiting for the ¤butË, you╠re not going to get one. I like the intelligence, I like the range, I like the compliment to my intelligence that her writing style implies. Here╠s what I would hope people got from my post above: 1) It╠s a shame we can╠t post comments on Weds.╠s posts because of certain individuals, 2) said individuals are being creeps, 3) any slap at actual people, however deserved, must be wrapped in self-depreciation and oh, it╠s all about me not getting to pontificate, really. In sum, Wednesday equals teh r0x0r. Clear?

I╠m clearly ranting at someone here, but I╠m not sure who.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at January 30, 2006 1:00 PM

Ack. My apologies -- I didn't mean to make you an anti-me spokesperson. I was trying to enumerate the straws which snapped my spine, and misconstrued you in the process.

Comment from: KennyCelican posted at January 31, 2006 2:29 PM

Oh, my. When last I was here I was lamenting privately over not being able to post a witty, possibly informative, and above all cognitively ephemeral comment about one of Wed's last two posts. Now I come back and find out the whys and wherefores all spelled out.

I typed and subsequently deleted many things here, most of which are patently irrelevant. Comments designed to show my support for the current authorial paradigm while displaying my sorrow at the measures required to maintain that paradigm. So I'll try the short, short version. I like Weds posts. The writing and thinking are different than Erics, but equally pleasant to read. Trolls / Weds haters should find something better to do.

Oh, and if that nailgun comes anywhere NEAR that Diana Rigg poster me and my staplegun are gonna have words with you. Mustn't defile the sacred. Well, ok, not with something as boring as a pneumatic nailgun.

Comment from: Danalog posted at February 2, 2006 6:06 PM

Man, I don't read one thread, and it's the one that has the information I've been looking for.

Weds's writing doesn't always make sense to me... but that's part of the fun! I learn more that way, and isn't that why we're here! (well except for people who are here to bitch) =P

I know my opinion doesn't really count, but there it is.

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?