I am removing myself from any mailing lists or communities that deal with Warren Ellis

[docwebster]

Why, you might ask?

Because of this entry, wherein he states:

"“Cigarettes are my food,” said Frank Zappa. And then he died of testicular cancer. Which came as no surprise to anyone who’d heard him wanking in recording studios for thirty years, but still. Anyone who names his kid Moon Unit is plainly asking for his balls to rot off. Because there is such a thing as karma. Welcome to the concept of universal payback."

Fuck off, Warren.

Comments

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

And what he says and what he does are two different things.

Furthermore: It's JOKING. Taking it seriously is your option, but it is also not the intent of the delivery. So blaming him for "saying it"? I blame the people who can't relax at all.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Okay, look: It doesn't look or sound satirical within the context of the rest of the post. It doesn't appear to be a joke in any way. It's leading into his larger point. It's not over the top, it's not sarcastic, it's just his opinion.

And, perhaps milord doth protest too much.

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

Oh fucking please. Within the context of Ellis himself it is the same level of satire as everything else he does. IT is the Personality he uses. It is not the man himself. I have first hand experience there.

Your refusal to see it doesn't make it not there. Simple, really.

You Really Don't See It, Do You?

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Glad for your experience. The rest of us have to go on what we experience. And, in its own context, without the rest of his body of work or history of posting or whatever, it doesn't look satirical at all.

I don't think of Ellis as a satirist; I think of him as a dramatist. I can take or leave him. You, on the other hand, are marking out big-time for him, and apparently can't see the problem that some of us see. Therefore, I regretfully suggest that we really can't continue this conversation on any intelligent level.

Re: You Really Don't See It, Do You?

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

"are marking out big-time for him, and apparently can't see the problem that some of us see. "

No. I am confused based on my history with one person here why he sees this differently than other things.

I honestly don't care what you think. I was just correcting things that aren't true.

[docwebster.livejournal.com]

Okay, fine. I can deal with that. Warren himself might well indeed be a peachy keen kind of guy in this miasma we call real life. What I'm talking about is stepping away from the online persona, not the man himself.

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

Sure. My confusion still stands, from the years I've known you.

You've said worse about people who have made you mad. Ya see?

[docwebster.livejournal.com]

The way I figure it is this - if somebody on IRC is annoying me, I either leave the channel for a little bit and go back later, and put them on ignore and check back later. This, to me, is exactly like that. Does that make it any clearer? No harm, no foul. I don't piss on his parade, he doesn't piss on mine, life goes on and I let things simmer down then see what's going on from there.

I still want my Spider Jersualem glasses.

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

Ellis isn't a context, he's a person. Of course he can have a reputation of being a satirical bastard, but that doesn't automatically stamp everything he says with an 'only joking' disclaimer.

People are reacting to his words here, not his personality. Unless he's somehow relying on people like you to set the record straight (which I doubt) then there's no reason not to take those words at face value.

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

" then there's no reason not to take those words at face value."

That's like taking a snippet of one thing someone says and demanding your own context for it. *shrug* If you wanna play by those rules, then play by 'em.

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

I'm not demanding my own context. Just pointing out that the alleged satire doesn't have any contextual signifiers. There's no wink, as it were. You have the experience of having met the man personally, so you can now observe a dichotomy between what he is and what he says. But to anyone else, coming to this cold, that dichotomy isn't apparent, and Ellis surely knows that.

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

As is, I would venture a guess, his intent.

Let me put it another way...

I guess I'm shocked at how many ppl seem to need people shouting "I WINKED, YOU FUCKS" from the rooftop.

*shrug*

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

What part of the quoted paragraph screams 'I winked, you fucks'?

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

None. Which is kinda uhh... what I just said.

I am shocked at how many ppl seem to NEED THAT.

Not that HE SAID THAT.

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

It's not the people who need it, it's the writer.

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

Uhm. Hi.

No.

See... the...

You know what? Nevermind. You don't get it. It isn't part of you to get it. And I have nothing to gain or lose by you getting it or not, so I'm gonna stop slamming my head into a wall here trying to explain simple concepts.

Enjoy yourself and may your horizons broaden.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I just got it.

You, that is.

See if this rings any bells:

"Don't you dare say nothin' 'bout Stevie Wonder! He's a musical genius!" [sniffle]

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

Wow gonna call me a poo-poo head next?

Goodness gracious!

No, seriously. He doesn't get what I'm saying. At all. With the winking. I mean we were both saying one thing then he turned it around and... whatever. I mean this is the same man who apprently thinks some things AREN'T funny - like accidental deaths and shit.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

So, does he pay you to explain how he's a misunderstood genius, and really a nice chap?

I've honerstly never heard of him until this post. Went out and read his last twenty or so public postings.

Raging asshole. Nothing else.

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying he is a genius of any sort.

Regardless... sling whatever you want, dearie. Maybe sometime you can go back and read what I've said and see my point. Or not.

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

No, you've missed my point.

See, nobody needs to interpret Warren Ellis in the way in which you would like them to interpret Warren Ellis. However, if Warren Ellis doesn't WANT people to take him at face value, then he needs to contextualise his work in some manner OTHER than by simple reputation. So, if there is any 'need' here, it's on his side, not the reader's; but unless you think that his work ought to be read in a given way, there isn't any 'need' at all.

Furthermore, it's not a matter of 'not getting it', it's a matter of not LIKING it. In all sorts of creative endeavour, there tends to be a belief on the part of those who enjoy it that those who do NOT enjoy it do not understand it, the conceit being that if they DID understand it, they would like it just as much as the supporters do.

Not 'getting' a joke is a matter of missing a nuance, or being ignorant of some information, which gives the appropriate perspective (as when a younger kid doesn't get a dirty joke). So, the inference is that the person who doesn't get it is somehow not properly clued in. By contrast, this isn't about whether or not someone gets it, it's about affiliation and familiarity. You've already explained the 'joke' - hey, he's not like that in real life! - but that doesn't make it funny.

Much like jokes about the Irish, or any other group, this is a 'joke' at the expense of those who aren't privy to Ellis's real persona. One 'gets it' by identifying as part of that group. It's not about broadening horizons, it's about buying into a group. And that's why you're coming across as a more ardent supporter than you actually are.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think he's BOTH a context and a person. "Celebrities" are, in effect, two separate entities: person and product.

And certainly people have every right to react to the product in whatever way they see fit. It's not a product for the weak of stomach, that's for certain. But I think it wise to remind ourselves that, especially online, everything is a construct that may or may not be related to the actual person behind it.

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

But I think it wise to remind ourselves that, especially online, everything is a construct that may or may not be related to the actual person behind it.

If the person is engineering it, it can't help but be related.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

Hence, may or may not.

It is the job of Warren Ellis to garner reaction. His public persona is, I'm quite sure, well calculated to elicit a very specific response. He seems intent on shocking his audience, who seem to fall into two categories. Those who get the joke and those who don't.

And that's fine. I'm pretty sure that having a large number of people revile him for being a grotesque bastard is a risk he consciously ran.

It's fine if people don't get the joke. But they do need to remember, especially if they've only been presented with a 3 line paragraph as evidence, that everything has a context.

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

Those who get the joke and those who don't.

The trouble with that is that a statement about, say, Zappa's balls rotting off doesn't become a 'joke' just because Warren Ellis is the one saying it. Otherwise, if someone's dad is run over by a bus, and I laugh, then I get the joke and they don't.

It's fine if people don't get the joke.

And it's equally fine if people acknowledge that if context is paramount, then there is no joke, just a tacit agreement between writer and audience to interpret words in a given manner (the humour lying in the dissonance between the expressed extremity and the understood actuality). There's no comforting bottom line of right interpretation here; for all anyone knows, Warren Ellis might have a secret personal agenda of utter spite and venom, and may in his final days be plotting to laugh at everyone who ever laughed with him, claiming that it was never funny and they are all so many stupid arseholes for thinking so.

Context doesn't abnegate responsibility.

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

"Otherwise, if someone's dad is run over by a bus, and I laugh, then I get the joke and they don't."

Well... yeah. Why is this a problem?

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

Do you believe that someone's accidental death can constitute a 'joke'?

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

Do you believe that some things truly AREN'T funny?

Cause lemme tell you: You'd be wrong.

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

You answer my question first, please. :)

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

Oh. Sorry.

Yes.

[docwebster.livejournal.com]

I do love a good debate.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

"Get the joke" here is short hand for "understand what it is that Ellis is doing every time he opens his mouth in a public forum in which he is on show, such as livejournal."

So when I say some people "get the joke," I am indicating that some people sign the unwritten user agreement expressing their buy-in to the concept of Ellis.

There is rarely the comfort of a perfectly clear bottom line. That's why the real world is such a sticky, uncomfortable place.

Context doesn't abnegate responsibility, but people also have a responsibility to consume responsibly. As I said, it's fine if people don't want to buy-in to the world of Ellis. But as responsible consumers, they ought also, perhaps, to understand that they are reacting to a product.

Keep in mind, I don't have anything against anyone deciding that Ellis isn't a product of which they want to partake. I just think it important to note that he, in his very manufactured online posturing, is playing a role.

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

So when I say some people "get the joke," I am indicating that some people sign the unwritten user agreement expressing their buy-in to the concept of Ellis.

Buying in is a good analogy. 'Getting the joke' isn't, in my view, because it's derived from much older, more monocultural models of humour in which comprehension rather than sympathy is the deciding factor.

I just think it important to note that he, in his very manufactured online posturing, is playing a role.

Right, but I don't think people should necessarily bother to take that into account. You don't have to buy into the Ellis user agreement. You don't have to accept the I-had-my-fingers-crossed stance. The worst that can come of it is that you are perceived as having have wasted time with something that someone 'didn't really mean', but it rather seems that the alternative is to let such things roll by unheeded because you might be getting trolled.