Subject:
|
Re: The problem I have with upcoming product hoaxes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:32:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
780 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> No, I fell for it, hook line and sinker. Perhaps it's because I *wanted* it to
> be true, because I know that Lego is capable of far better designs than what
> we are currently getting in the train line. When I finally realised these
> were a hoax, I cried.
>
> In my defense I will say this: I got to see Ben's models up close and in
> person, and those pictures that were posted do NOT do them justice. They are
> really awesome pieces of work.
>
> Ben and I (mildly, and in a friendly way) disagree about whether making that
> kind of joke is cruel or just a good piece of good clean fun, but I am in awe
> of his skill as a (eurotrash :-) ) modeler and I am really really glad that I
> was able to make time to get out to Braunschweig to see them (even IF I hadn't
> went out shopping with Ben and Torsten and scored some amazing deals) when I
> was in Berlin.
>
> The Burp AT AT on the other hand clearly was intended to be a gag and it
> worked fine as a gag. I got a laugh out of it. Who here didn't?
>
> Before we all jump on Jeff, though, think about what he's saying. I think it's
> a good philosophical question worthy of discussion. Do gag hoaxes do harm or
> good? Do really really good hoaxes do harm or good? (harm to who? the
> community, TLG, other?)
I think we've seen some confusion in this thread between two different kinds
of pretence:
(1) parodies/gags/jokes that are designed to point out the shortcomings of
sets and themes by exaggerating their flaws
(2) hoaxes that are designed to mislead others through accurate imitation of
sets and themes
Parodies like the AT-AT and BURP adventure are excellent, because they combine
humour, creativity and an outlet for our frustration with aspects of Lego,
such as juniorisation and its epitome, the BURP.
In principle, I would say that hoaxes are unfortunate. If poorly perpetrated
(eg someone posting anonymously a false written description of a non-existent
catalogue), they show a sad, destructive, attention-seeking mentality. They
shouldn't be harmful, because without corroborating evidence people should not
believe them. If a hoax is well done, it might show an insecure capacity to
accept responsibility and praise (just playing talk show therapist here). When
revealed they should be respected for creativity, but the hoaxer should
probably be counselled against doing it again.
In practice however, I have only seen one hoax on Lugnet -- Ben's April 1
catalogue. April Fools Day is almost certainly the only day of the year when a
first grade hoax should be whole-heartedly appreciated, admired and laughed
at. The fact he was able to pull it off two years running is even more
impressive.
A spin-off debate here is the cultural assumptions built into Lugnet, which
surely has a bearing on our understanding of humour, and sub-texts in general.
With a US based newsgroup and a European product, it's fairly natural that
there's a corresponding bias to the postings (so that both New Zealand and
Norway, which I guess are fairly small markets, have as many posts in .loc as
Japan). I wonder to what extent communication relies on shared cultural
knowledge, and how this affects the content of this international forum?
-- Dave Low
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The problem I have with upcoming product hoaxes
|
| (...) No, I fell for it, hook line and sinker. Perhaps it's because I *wanted* it to be true, because I know that Lego is capable of far better designs than what we are currently getting in the train line. When I finally realised these were a hoax, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
