« Also, don't pat them on the head and say 'aren't you clever?' They *hate* that. | Main | GURPS Traveller also continues the traditions of the Traveller's Aid Society. That just rocks. »

Eric: This is sadly a significant portion of my week....

The problem with citing examples in essays is sometimes you end up muddling your point rather than making it.

I've had a bit of correspondence with various folks today about my last post. Specifically, about the reference to This Week in Webcomics Boning. And it's raised a worthy point which really needs to be brought forward. In part because the strength of the example only works from one perspective. From another perspective, it makes me guilty of exactly what I'm railing against in the essay.

See, I remember the original post that Fleen had that made reference to This Week in Webcomics Boning. It was by Gary Tyrrell, who's been the breakout star of Fleen to date. And it was made in reference to a specific thread of comments in a post by a person whose name was indicative of a day of the week. And I remember his followup, where he announced the recruitment of the new weekly columnist:

News: Fleen will shortly have a new contributor! Due to overwhelming response regardaring This Week In Webcomics Boning, we have obtained the services of an insider. Join us on a trip inside the seamy underbelly of webcomics: the booze, the drugs, the parties, the fast cars and faster women … each Thursday, all this and more will fall under the scrutiny of our very own Tuesday Crimson. Naturally, we will be protecting Ms Crimson’s identity closely, but trust us: she’s got the dirt.

Now, obviously "Tuesday Crimson" is a pastiche on Kelly Cooper, as we all know. Regardless, I got it in my head that Tuesday was recruited specifically by Tyrrell (or was Tyrrell or Lowrey writing under a pseudonym) to produce a specific sendup. In other words, that it was a joke.

Well, we had the first two columns by Crimson, and hey. It wasn't. Crimson has a specific style and is going for a specific satire, but is either a real person writing an independent column or an incredible simulation coded by Phillip Karlsson.

Now, if my initial assumption had been true -- if "Tuesday Crimson" were a joke meant to lampoon a prominent female critic -- then it would have been a perfectly good example for the previous essay.

However, she's not. She's an actual person doing actual writing. And it's been pointed out to me that I'm actually making exactly the same assumption about her that I rail against in said essay as a result.

I failed to adjust my view of Crimson to the reality. I let the initial impression linger in my brain. And when I wrote the last essay, I used that impression to support my point.

However, that impression was wrong, and Crimson should be taken on her own merits. Regardless of her subject matter. Exactly as I said should be done by all of us in the last essay.

I hate irony.

My apologies to Gary Tyrrell and Tuesday Crimson.

Posted by Eric Burns-White at March 17, 2006 7:26 PM

Comments

Comment from: dormouse77 [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 7:37 PM

I assume Tuesday Crimson is meant to be insulting to Wednesday White. How can we not assume that? It was created to respond to a post of Wednesday White. And at best it seems like they're trying to cut Wednesday down to size. Or else that they wanted to bait you into talking about them on websnark. I mean, didn't Fleen start by Jon Rosenberg going out and starting a bunch of flamewars? And didn't he admit he did it to stir shit up and get people talking about Fleen? Isn't this exactly the same thing?

Comment from: Ardaniel [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 8:15 PM

If Ms. Crimson is looking for a more serious reception, perhaps she needs to re-think her choice of pseudonym.

Comment from: miyaa [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 8:20 PM

Wasn't Ms. Crimson one of the new suspects in Super Cluedo?

Comment from: siwangmu [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 10:24 PM

The main issue I have here is this:

"Now, if my initial assumption had been true -- if "Tuesday Crimson" were a joke meant to lampoon a prominent female critic -- then it would have been a perfectly good example for the previous essay.

However, she's not. She's an actual person doing actual writing"

Actually, if she is the second, then it can only mean she is both, or the universe has a much larger appetite for sitcom-esque coincidence than I give it credit for.

Comment from: Eric Burns [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 10:27 PM

Oh, "Tuesday Crimson" is clearly a nom de plume. But it's possible it was picked without malice, surely.

Comment from: Robert Hutchinson [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 10:51 PM

I can only think of one other plausible reason besides malice. I had it written out, too, before I realized it might fall afoul of the rules.

Comment from: Doug [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 10:55 PM

What next? (My Gal) Friday Taupe's Skeleton Closet?

However, there is a bright side to this. At best, there's only five more iterations of this joke before they have to break down and start raiding the names of the months.

Comment from: Monday Mauve [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 11:11 PM

Uh-oh. I take it that my new column's going to be received with some skepticism?

Comment from: Dan Vincent [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 11:13 PM

How about Thursday Burnt Sienna?

*ducks*

Comment from: siwangmu [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 11:16 PM

Yeah, gender things are a bit of a minefield, so I don't know who to complain to about the fact that a woman's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't on sex--I resented when I first saw this business that Wednesday and therefore, one would assume, her work and, one might go so far as to imply, her role as a contributor on a multi-person comics blog are apparently reducible to "talk about boning!" It's undeniable that she works against the "women not allowed to talk about boning" idea (see Maritza and masturbation, previous thread), but does that mean we necessarily have to call that her essence and play into the "that's what women are about, the sex issue stuff because we have the vaginas not the opinions" idea? Honestly, this is just a less coherent reiteration of what you said in the first place, because the emerging content, unless it gives us meaningful ways to redefine the nom de plume choice and column title choice, is not going to replace the logical original conclusions. You're right that it being a real person and a real author matters, but, dangit, the whole thing's a little sketchy. So I think you were right in the first place. And Weds, please excuse the third-person treatment, I just went with that cuz, uh, Eric talked last.

Comment from: siwangmu [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 17, 2006 11:21 PM

Two slight modifications: I had meant to note that however sketchy the surrounding business, I might have to actually read her column as often as possible 'cuz she references AKOTAS (which I didn't know I was that much a cheerleader of till I saw the link and got all excited), so she's clearly awesome.

Also, this is totally how I'm spending my St. Patty's Day. I am SO COOL!

Comment from: kjc [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 18, 2006 2:24 AM

Ah feel so... violated. It's unseemly.

Mmm. Yep. That's creativity, right there. Yer soaking in it.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski [TypeKey Profile Page] posted at March 18, 2006 2:29 PM

she references AKOTAS

I'd say this in email instead but there's nothing in siwangmu's Typekey profile: Thanks for the heads-up, I'd overlooked that. (And thanks for reading.)

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?