This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"My very own riot?"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 21 December 2014




Tweet







July 31 2008

Mama Pop on Dr. Horrible & Stalking Strawberry-Blond Auteurs. A well written bit of fun over at Mama Pop that some of us can probably relate to a bit more than we'd ever admit.

And, yes, I had to resurrect the Strawberry-Blond Auteur nonsense. No, you don't have to thank me.

some of us can probably relate to a bit more than we'd ever admit.


Actually not for me. I like the guy, I adore his work but I have really no desire to meet him or anyone else associated with his work. I like to keep a distance. Does that make sense?
I sure hope it was just a "bit of fun," rather than a bit of evidence to be presented in court for a restraining order.

Seems like there's ample opportunity to say everything nice (as well as everything critical) you want to say to Joss here or anywhere that here might link to. But if one feels the need to demand his time and personal attention -- a bit of his life -- I think that's taking from him rather than giving to him. Taint right.
So, will we post similar blog entries from other people trying desperately to get in touch with Joss? That could get a little weak. (I'm really just trying to understand what made this one special.)
Oh, I dunno... I got some willies readin' that.
Actually not for me. I like the guy, I adore his work but I have really no desire to meet him or anyone else associated with his work. I like to keep a distance. Does that make sense?


Not stalking him either. No we aren't going to post every blog entry that comes along. Mama Pop isn't just random_person_26's blog, however, its a women's pop culture blog. Debated posting it, but thought people might find it funny, so went ahead. Apparently everyone's sense of humor/fun dried up earlier today?
Ahh I thought it was funny. Plus she is going through appropriate channels and not, you know, stalking him at the grocery store. At least yet...
I think it might be funny if it didn't seem earnest? And if I hadn't read earnest and borderline stalkery things before.
Sense of humor is pretty subjective, Z - I laugh at things that... make me laugh. Hardly means my sense of humor is gone if something doesn't.

There was a desperate note in that, I thought, that sucked all the humor out of the room - for me, of course, not for you.
I guess its totally dependent on whether you took it seriously or as a fan being over the top for effect. We can all still laugh at truly funny things like Tara's death, though, right?
IMjournalisticO, it's not right to use interview requests to get a chance to express your fan adulation one-n-one. Agents and assistants have their hands full dealing with legitimate interview requests and shouldn't have to waste time screening fans.

[ edited by Pointy on 2008-07-31 18:46 ]
Tara's death is always a knee-slapper.
Whew, I thought I was losing it for a sec ;). You're totally right, Pointy we need more non-fan journalists so we can hear questions like:

"So, are you keeping up with the Buffy Season Eight comics?" and "Why do you write such strong female characters?". Yes, I am being facetious. I am, in fact, working on my merit badge in it.

I still see the piece as making fan of the truly stalkery, but what do I know; your mileage may vary. At least we all agree re: Tara (see how I call you out when you aren't posting much, Dana5140?).
Oh hai, I'm the author of the piece in question. Just wanted to introduce myself properly... I'm really not a *stalker*, just a writer who also owns/edits a pop culture blog for women (it's my job).

As someone who's had several brushes with the creepy/dark side of a relatively teeny-tiny smidgen of fame/celebrity, I can assure you my intentions are noble and above-board and professional. Yes, I adore Joss and his work, but there's nothing even vaguely sinister about it - I respect Joss and his privacy and would never overstep public/private boundaries. I thought my making fun of myself being "creepy" and "stalking" throughout the piece might have, you know, suggested I'm VERY, VERY aware of the freaky side of fandom, and that I was kind of calling that out, yanno?

I'm a writer, and I take that job seriously. But there is very little I won't do for the laffs.

Anyway, thanks for humoring me, and I hope to see you all around these parts!
I'm kind of with Simon. On the one hand, I can relate to the "Joss Whedon is my master now" T-shirt because in the entertainment realm of my life, he kinda is. But I don't have a particular interest in meeting him face-to-face.

In fact, I don't want him wasting his time meeting ANY fans face-to-face. I want him to spend ALL of his time creating things for ME to enjoy. [kidding! kidding!]
I support the crochet monthly person who wanting a chat (I forget the name, sorry!) just recently because Joss did mention the whole crochet thing in another interview, and hey, it's funny. But it could get ugly very fast if everyone with a blog started making public pleas for Joss' attention.

The other day I read about someone paying $300 to get in line to the poster signing at SDCC too. I really admire the guy, and whenever you experience someone else's work you always have questions you'd like to ask, so if you ever have the opportunity to say hi, that's cool. But trying to create that opportunity yourself just seems a little too much...
Oh and PS: As the blog entry suggests, I have no interest in *meeting* him, just interviewing him for MamaPop. I live in Baltimore :)
I saw it as she is a writer, this is her job, trying to get an interview. And writing a humorous piece about it. She is going through all the appropriate channels it isn't for us to decide if her request is highbrow/legitimate enough... that is the job of all the people she is contacting. Personally I found the article hilarious.
I guess the tone fails to convey that it's meant in good fun for me because I've seen a lot of people who did actually creep me out use an extremely similar tone. It's a weird mix of sort of self-aware self-referencing (haha! I'm stalking him!) and sort of... not (insert actually creepy statement here). So the over-the-topness imitates the real thing a bit too well even if that was adopted in order to convey a certain deliberate ridiculousness.
The other day I read about someone paying $300 to get in line to the poster signing at SDCC too. I really admire the guy, and whenever you experience someone else's work you always have questions you'd like to ask, so if you ever have the opportunity to say hi, that's cool. But trying to create that opportunity yourself just seems a little too much...

I'm relatively new to this whole fandom thing and seeing the lengths that people will go to just for few moments of face time with a celebrity was more than a little disturbing to me. Not talking about this blog post though, which I took as tongue-in-cheek. I'm talking about the ones who get a little too invested in the goal, totally losing all perspective on appropriate financial and personal investments and who are inevitably disappointed with the fruits of their labors.

[ edited by BrewBunny on 2008-07-31 19:06 ]
Actually not for me. I like the guy, I adore his work but I have really no desire to meet him or anyone else associated with his work. I like to keep a distance. Does that make sense?
Simon

Yes, Simon, it makes sense and I am in complete agreement. I will do what I can to support his work from afar (spread the word, download from iTunes, buy DVDs) but I will leave him in peace to do what he does best. And there are many brighter minds than I who will ask the great questions (like the nature vs. nurture opinion) and I will happily wait for those interviews to be posted here on the black!

[ edited by floofypooh on 2008-07-31 19:09 ]
I don't know. This is kind of creepy.

But I am someone who would love to meet Joss face-to-face. I had a ticket in the Dr. Horrible signing raffle at Comic-Con, and when my number wasn't selected, it wasn't a crushing blow or anything, but I was disappointed. I think it's because Joss is the reason I want to make movies and write stories, as he's the single greatest influence on my creative life. So at some point in my life I'd like to be able to meet him or thank him or something, even if it's only over a signing. I kind of want to meet all of my icons.
Sunfire, you've described perfectly why the humor managed to escape me. It's exactly that I've seen, as you have, "self-aware self-referencing" used by people to excuse their own ACTUAL creepiness. I get, with later explanation, that this apparently wasn't the case here, but past experience is why the intended humor just didn't happen to hit its mark on me.

[ edited by theonetruebix on 2008-07-31 19:07 ]
Just to clarify, I posted before I read the blog owner's response, so my comments don't apply to her. I'm all for journalists getting interviews. :) I was just using this as an opportunity to talk about some of the ..more obsessed fans. I was really disturbed by that $300 thing too, and I hope it's been exaggerated ($30 wouldn't seem so bad).
b!X - I may have felt the same way if I hadn't poked around on Mama Pop. Objectively. it may have seemed creepy if I'd come into it blank. I think we've all had experience with the sort of creepy in question (this is his dry-cleaning bill!).
For his sweater vest, right? Because if it's not, and I've got the wrong one...
:) Several of them I believe. Now if you'll excuse me I need to put this authentic Joss Whedon grocery list on eBaytm.
People, I come in peace, I'm a journalist. I was being funny (I thought). I want an interview, not to meet Joss, or have his babies, or whatever y'all are reading into this.

Pleae read earlier comment.

kthxbai!
Oh, I so want the crochet people to get an interview with Joss, and then I want them to discuss only crochet, knitting, embroidery and other arts-and-crafts as they relate to the Whedon'verse.

It honestly makes me laugh just thinking about it.

I mean, hasn't somebody already whipped up a pattern for the sweater vest? I betcha someone has, and I want to see it.
and I want to see it.
Ah, but do you want to wear it?
I mean, hasn't somebody already whipped up a pattern for the sweater vest? I betcha someone has, and I want to see it.


Your right, that's not at all creepy :).

Ah, but do you want to wear it?


I stand corrected, that's creepy ;).
Sweetney, I get that. For my part, I was simply explaining why the humor escaped me, not asserting you weren't being humorous.
I hope my comments are irrelevant, but even if you're a reporter for the Wall Street New York Washington Post Times Journal and Gazette, professional courtesy and ethics dictate that you do not set up interviews with people you're fans of to tell them how great you think they are, even if you're going to ask intelligent questions and write a story afterwards. It's an abuse of a professional relationship -- that of interviewer to interviewee -- for personal reasons. Also icky.
So someone paid 300 dollars to get in a line for an autograph? Wow.

BTW, I have noticed that for Dr Horrible that the Horrible team seemed to go out of their way to give interviews with fan run sites and I appreciated that. I would think this is in that vein, right? Since she would like an interview for Dr. Horrible and not Dollhouse.

And the crochet interview is one I really want to read. ;D

But yeah, humor is subjective. Now I think I'll check out some of her other posts. I mean, it's not like I'm at work or anything...
someone paid 300 dollars to get in a line for an autograph

I would say that this is completely crazy, except that I don't like to question how other people spend their money. Because then someone might question some of MY choices. And that could get awkward.
Pointy -- I can think of many, many professional journalists who would disagree strongly with you, but you're welcome to your opinion... In any case, MamaPop is a Pop Culture blog written with humor and infused with the writers personalities and their personal opinions -- their loves and hates, and their feelings about their loves and hates. It isn't dry journalism that follows the dictates of newspaper *reporting*. It's a much different style of writing. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but I also know I can't please everyone.

Anyway, glad that some of you DID get a chuckle out of my post. And with that, I leave you all in peace.
I would say that this is completely crazy, except that I don't like to question how other people spend their money.

I'm actually more interested in who got that 300! I mean, this was at Comic Con right? I don't know how it works, but from what I've read it seems you get to a booth that will have signings and either you get in line or they are handing out tickets to be able to get in line.... so who did he give the 300 too? A person in line, or the booth for the ticket? Or what?

BTW, Graham Norton freely admits he uses his show to meet celebrities he is a fan of.
Pointy, Do you think that Kristen from e!online is unethical for her fangirl behavior in this interview with Nathan Fillion?
If your definition of professional journalist encompasses anyone who's ever gotten paid to write, Sweetney, I fear you may know many who would use their positions for fannish ends. But it's a matter of professional courtesy and ethics (and I'm typing as a longtime journalist) not to.
BewBunnyBrewBunny, the standards are different in TV entertainment reporting since the reporters are entertainers, too. In context, we know that her description of Nathan as her second husband is comedy, not to be taken literally. If she used her position to pursue him romantically, or if she tried to interview him to profess her love, that would be an abuse. She's great and her approach works because people know that she is sending up being a fan while covering things she's genuinely enthusiastic over. It would be hard to formulate a hard and fast line between the kind of things she says and the kind of things a stalker would say, but journalists do have to stay on one side of that line.

ETA: I meant BooBerrry, like the cereal.

[ edited by Pointy on 2008-07-31 20:07 ]
That would be BrewBunny. As in beer. :-) I'm sure your "BewBunny" was a typo, but for some stoopid reason it makes me giggle.

[ edited by BrewBunny on 2008-07-31 20:02 ]
Haha. Actually, it does me too. Now I can't stop saying it in my head. BewBunny, BooBunny! (Ok, I AM at work, so I've got to stifle these giggles. Seriously.)
Let's all eat our happy cereal now!
Now that the discussion is over...

Not stalking him either. No we aren't going to post every blog entry that comes along. Mama Pop isn't just random_person_26's blog, however, its a women's pop culture blog. Debated posting it, but thought people might find it funny, so went ahead. Apparently everyone's sense of humor/fun dried up earlier today?
zeitgeist


My humor hasn't dried up yet, zeitgeist, but then again I kind of sort of just woke up. :)

I thought it was funny, and kind of awakening in a sense. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but the fact that some "regulars" are on this site more-often-than-not, pouring over every detail and discussion that has anything to do with Joss... down to the point where argument has ensued (with pictures!) of what color hair he has... eh, I kind of see that as "stalking", with good intentions. :) (I add the smiley because of late, I'm one of those "regulars".)

And, that "stalker" feeling is kicked up a couple of notches because of Dr. Horrible, and of Joss' connection to the black. We were there from the beginning, it means something to us, sort of special...

I'm not saying we're (or, more particular- ME) stalkers, but I can see how we're, uh, more enthused(?) fans than usual. So humor? Check. Cold shivers? Check and check.

RE: Guy with $300. Is this any different than the conventions where one pays ~$200 to get an autograph and picture with their fan-focus? I would say it's the same mentality (your favorites, up close and personal), just the wrong venue for that sort of attention.
I thought it was cleverly written and was funny (intentionally funny), so I enjoyed getting the link. In fact I thought the writing was good enough so that I'd be willing to bet the interview questions would also be interesting (better than the average hack writer comes up with). The stalking question is another matter, and I guess I can understand people being a little lacking in a sense of humor about something that can be serious. But really, haven't a lot of people here traveled long distances for conventions which are primarily about getting to hear Joss (and our BDHs) speak, and hopefully also meet him, and photograph him? Just last year Joss auctioned off dinner with himself to the highest bidders, without being fearful of stalkers being the ones to come up with the most cash (which kind of shows that Joss is not really afraid of his fans).

Personally I got to meet (and hug) Joss at the Chicago Wonder Con a few years back, and it remains one of my happiest days.
Oh man, there goes embers again, being all nice and reasonable and understanding. Sheesh, takes all the fun out of being snooty superfans. ;-)
Snoot away, BooBunny. No one will stop you if you truly are a superfan. Here's some dirt. Now, toss it out, and walk on air to the Holy Joss.

Believe. Belieeeeve. Hey, I'm dieing here. Can't you walk faster? I have to know what Joss eats for breakfast before I die. And a hug, too, if it's not out of the way. :)
zeitgeist, no I don't thank you for the "Strawberry-Blond Auteur nonsense". I had hoped it would die. Long live Purple Dude!
A few hours later, that typo still makes me giggle. I obviously need to get out more.
Hey, I wanna talk with Joss Whedon! Yet, not for an interview about any of his shows [he has enough of those]. I just need some mentorship. ;)
I'd love to meet Joss. All my family, friends, acquaintances, and supermarket checkout people know this. Joss is one of my 'desert island' people - and we'd never run out of things to discuss.

Was that last bit out loud? ;)
I think it's a little unfair of the author to say 'whedonesque people' think she is an actual stalker - as she does in the comments on her blog. I see all kinds of opinions here, yay and nay.

For me personally that blog post was too close to the bone. Not that funny if like others have said, you've seen the real thing up close across several fandoms.

Also, I'm with Simon on having no desire to meet Joss or associates.
Caroline, I know she added that Whedonesque comment at the end before I started posting on this thread, when things were usually "nay". Maybe she hasn't checked since then?
Yeah, Caroline, it's a reading comprehension thing or something - the bulk of the people who didn't find it funny didn't think she was an actual stalker - just that the way she exaggerated the stalker notion didn't work as humor for them, for a variety of reasons which they list. I thought it had, as I mentioned, a slightly desperate quality and a creepiness that just didn't hit my funny bone. Chacun son got.

And lest anyone think I judge anyone even a tiny bit for wanting to meet Jossir - which I don't at all - I wicked enjoyed meeting Joss, even everso briefly last year. It was a treat and it easily made my month.

Edited: 'cause of awkward wording...

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-08-01 01:27 ]
For the record, I do not think she is an actual stalker. I think she nailed the tone of an actual stalker. Which is why I didn't think it was funny. It is just too close to the real thing for me to find the joke to begin with. And I don't mean this in a judgmental way. I'm not finding the joke and refusing to react to it because I think it's in bad taste or something. In this case, I wasn't amused to begin with.

It's a big blogosphere. To each their own. I find many things in Buffy to be deeply funny when many people here don't. It just is.
I thought it was funny, but of course my sense of humour is quite out there.
I thought it was hilarious and completely tongue-in-cheek. In addition, I have seen some scary stalkery behaviour from fans before and I thought this article was VERY clear that it was in jest. In addition, I understand that some might not think it was funny, tastes being different and such, but I did think some of the comments here were a little harsh in the beginning.
I thought the article was very well-written, and I knew that Sweetney was kidding - but I didn't find it funny, exactly. More, "isn't it crazy how crazy we can get about objects of our obsession?" . . . To be honest, I too think I've seen enough genuine craziness that I find even a clever and stylish piss-take somewhat unsettling (not Sweetney's fault, obviously). Then again, I'm easily unsettled. (I find the way some of our members speak about Joss et al., even knowing them to be tongue-in-cheek, to be slightly unsettling, frankly).

I'm not abashed to say that I have enjoyed meeting Joss and other people associated with him - there is a certain satisfaction for me in looking them in the eye and telling them that I've enjoyed their work. Even so, I personally find such interactions difficult because I'm thinking the whole time about how I might/must appear slightly deranged to them. And so I try to ground my comments in something tangible like, "when is Season 2 of The Guild coming out?" or "Do you read Whedonesque?" Soon, and all the time, according to Felicia. :-)
Yay, SNT! Good on her, and on you for speaking up! Another purple will grace our pages soon?

Sweet. I've often wondered why more of them don't come here. We're so cool and classy. :)
Except for when we're not.

I hope I'm not one of the unsettlers, SNT. That would unsettle me. Don't think so, but just making sure.

I didn't think Felicia Day actually read Whedonesque. She has everything else (her blog, Twitter, Facebook, etc...) to keep up with, and we're always running a mile a minute... I'm just surprised, is all.
You can kinda tell she and the Horriblers lurk here, cause they'll reference things that we talk about here. "From here to the eyes and the ears of the 'Verse."
"Except for when we're not."

Yeah, right. But name me a better site? None exist. Whedonesque is the gold standard. Whatever you may think of her folk, her lead people make sure it's true.

And how often does the "not" happen, anyway? And when has it not been fully and quickly dealt with?
I understand the tone of the article and myself often joke about stalking while accepting that it can be a very serious issue, ask Rebecca Schaeffer.
I met Joss on the picket line, I said "Hi" and shook his hand, said I was a fan and that was it. I have never attended a convention or gone to a signing or got a single autograph. Just never seen the point. But the ME day at Fox came up and it was a great chance to be part of a unique event and show support to a cause I believed in so I went.
Seeing all these people close up, in real life, was cool but I didn't try and follow any of them home.
As it happens I got to meet Joss again a few days later. That was cool. Still didn't try to follow him home.
I joke about things like this because I joke about everything. Is it a double bluff? Do I joke about being a obsessive stalker to hide the fact that I am in fact an obsessive stalker? Who knows...

Is that any different to Joss joking that Nathan got the Firely gig by showing Joss his penis, as he said at the Dr Horrible panel? Does the fact that we know it's Joss and that we know he's joking make it okay but no one else can joke about these things unless we know them?
Thanks, Willowy :-) I'm happy with Whedonesque too - for some reason it has grown up to be exactly the kind of offspring I'd imagined on conception. (Which is rare! A lot of the time you build something with some goal in mind and it turns out the community takes it somewhere you had not expected at all.) I don't think it's for everyone, we're kind of an anomaly online. We have to be quite, well, draconian sometimes to ensure we maintain the kind of environment we envision. Which isn't always fun, but I think it's all worth it. Things can get a little too self-congratulatory too, but on the whole I think we're a pretty cool place. I am, of course, entirely objective. ;-)
So. Are we all agreed that stalking is wrong?
Well unless it's celery stalking.
The 5th Doctor may not agree with you there, Simon ;). In any case you must be punished.
I did not have a problem with the article, but her comments on her site brought her down a couple pegs for me. I'm not a big fan of condescension.

It would be cool if all the lurking purples came out for one thread sometime. I have often thought that there were various good reasons for purple people not to want to post here. Besides it skewing the conversation, I would imagine that they think of it as "Joss's site" (as in devoted to him, not owned or run by him) and if they hung out here it could seem like they were stepping on his action or something. I'm not explaining it right, so I probably should not have tried until I got it straight in my head. Still it is good when they do decide to post.

"We have to be quite, well, draconian sometimes..."

...but draconian in a *good* way. ;-)
Her last comment on her site was "please don't hate on the whedonesque people", so... There is always some lag between what is said in one place and the info catching up to other places. Such is the interwebs...
If she doesn't want her readers to "hate on the whedonesque people," she might point out that no one here actually called her a stalker and that everyone did "get" that she was trying to be funny.
She did say "just a few" didn't seem to get her in her last comment. Whatever. Over, finished, gone, done, out. Feel free to go over there and comment about it, though.
korkster: "Except for when we're not."

Yeah, right. But name me a better site? None exist. Whedonesque is the gold standard. Whatever you may think of her folk, her lead people make sure it's true.

And how often does the "not" happen, anyway? And when has it not been fully and quickly dealt with?
Willowy | August 01, 05:48 CET


A perfect example of a joke gone wrong. Yes, Whedonesque is a terrific site; that's why I spend most of my waking moments checking out the news and discussing to death on topics.

And the "not" happens occasionally. Why, just in the other post about Goggle Money, SNT had to kindly remind people not to name-call. The site is great, but people are still human. I say this as I remember SNT getting on to me last week... It's needed, and it makes Whedonesque one of the best damn sites on the web, and the mods are super-nice, but it still is needed for those minor "not" moments.

Like I said, it was a joke gone wrong.

I've learned a lot, zeitgeist. Thank you for posting. :)
Well as this thread disappears over the horizon I do feel compelled to say that meeting Joss is not a bad thing, and not only because it makes a few of us happy. Joss invited people to the WGA picket lines and was pleased that so many came, and you know he doesn't set up a panel in one of the big ballrooms at Comic con without hoping that the room will be filled (by crazy over the top fans in full costume). I still think everyone is taking this too seriously and harshing her squee.
I'm with you embers. I didn't mind this article any either. Like zeitgeist I felt it was funny, and was then surprised to read the negative comments here. Sometimes, the black doesn't quite do what you'd expect them to (which makes sense, because you're not all bots programmed to make the exact kind of comments I'd expect. Right?).

As for meeting Joss et al: I went to one convention and enjoyed meeting the actors and Joss himself immensely. There was also a red-carpet premiere for Serenity which our then lively (now almost-dead) dutch browncoat forum I moderated organised, and I got to meet Nathan and Summer. Which was also great. A friendly little chat has no harm, as long as people are not expecting anything else.

But I can also see how you'd be "a Simon or Caroline" on this ;). In fact, I also frequent a music forum on singer/songwriters and bands like Counting Crows and Radiohead and we go out of our way to attend concerts of the people we're fans of. I have even gone abroad or attended multiple concerts over the course of a few days, which is typical fannish behaviour. But then, I go and find a nice caf to hang out with one or two of our forum members after shows end, while others go hang out at the artists exit with their setlists, get autographs and chat with the performers. I completely don't feel the need to there, but a chance to meet Joss and co? I'm there. Also because, on the whole, I want to thank those people for the hours and hours of enjoyment they've brought me (while applauding at a concert seems appreciation enough ;)). But, like SNT, I d feel very self-concious when saying anything. Sometimes, especially at conventions, the actors and writers notice that and they start a conversation themselves. Which is great, because you get to feel less stalker-like and still have a nice conversation (I remember J. August Richards and Amber Benson doing that at the convention I went to, and hear that Nathan Fillion often does similar things).

Pointy, speaking as a science journalist (and only an amateur, parttime movie critic), I have never had the opportunity to interview one of my "idols" from the entertainment industry, but that doens't mean I wouldn't be thrilled if I got the opportunity to do so (and if I was working at a major newspaper or magazine, I might actively try to get that interview if there was room for an article in our publication). I don't see any moral dilemma there. Now, on the other hand, if one would use that opportunity to stalk these people, then, yes, obviously, that's wrong. But I don't see any moral objections to fans interviewing the objects of their fandoms when that also happens to be their profession. I'd say it was a perk of the job. As long as they keep the interview itself and the resulting article professional, I don't even see a problem with mentioning that you love the fact you got the opportunity to interview said person, because you're a big fan (that's something I might imagine myself adding after the interview is over, while thanking them for their time).

of course, I'm writing all this while this article is waaay down on the main page, so chances are nobody's going to read this ;)
*/lurk*

I read it, GVH. And agree.

*lurk*
Me neither, GVH. The key is to "keep the interview and the resulting article professional," as you note.

I got to interview my greatest professional hero once, and I'm sure I mentioned at the end how much I loved his books, between asking him my last question and thanking him for his time. Years later, he praised my research in print, and I just floated for a few days. I've kept in sporadic e-mail touch with him since when my research turns up something I think he'll be interested in, which he responds to with some enthusiasm, but when I tell him his latest book was great, he pretty much just says Thx. Which is actually one more thing to admire about him. He's into his work, not into himself.

I notice that Felicia Day tweeted recently that her favorite fan mail is about the fantasy books she loves. By implication, it's not about her. It's about what she loves. That's one more cool thing about her, but she probably doesn't want me to send her an e-mail saying so.
Yeah, I think we can all agree on the "as long as it stays professional" bit. You don't want to just end up like Chris Farley sitting there saying "Remember when you killed Tara? That was awesome!" (paging Dana5140 ;)).
I would totally turn into Chris Farley around Joss! Except about Tara. :..(

ETA: *The memory maketh my emoticon to weep.*

[ edited by Pointy on 2008-08-01 22:15 ]
I have a sneaky suspicion i'd make as much sense as Chris Farley if I ever met Joss. And I mean Chris Farley now. There'd likely be gibbering is what i'm saying. And possibly things falling off.
I joke because it hurts :(. Saje, that was just wrong, btw...
Too soon for things falling off ?
Chris Farley things, one assumes. I'm not getting any more specific on that subject.
Yuck, Saje! Now I'm having stomach-churing flashbacks to the pulled-pork sandwich I had for lunch.
Unless it was pulled long pork, I don't see the connection. Is now a bad time to bring up this website? Meanwhile, back on topic. Actually, I wasn't enjoying the topic, unless I'm the winner of this month's no-prize for stories that unexpectedly cause large amounts of discussion.
Chuck you, farley!
Wow, folks. I think I'll be eating a Fake Lunch today 'cause of you'all. This was just like trying to watch House or Bones while eating dinner - very appetite suppressing.
I eat during House and Bones all the time.
Yuck, zeitgeist! Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, you had to introduce the image of Chris Farley pulling his long pork!

*shivers*
This was just like trying to watch House or Bones while eating dinner - very appetite suppressing.

What an interesting new fad diet you just discovered, QuoterGal!
I even sometimes eat bones during House. Still working on vicing that versa though.

(the only time I had trouble eating dinner during 'House' was one bit where they inject someone in the eye. Yuck. I wasn't even eating eye that night but it still almost put me off)

Is now a bad time to bring up this website?

Heh, that's hilarious, love the way the interests and dislikes become progressively more random ;).
That's actually potentially more gross than what I was really saying, but I think you took it wrong deliberately, BrewBunny :).

Saje - yeah, its a good thing you weren't eating eye, that would've put you right off it (!).
This thread is reminding me of one of the Best Blog Features Ever: The Sneeze's "Steve, Don't Eat It!" Make sure to check out Vol. 2: Pickled Pork Rinds.
Clearly brilliant links are like buses, you sit around waiting (and emphatically not actively searching them out yourself) and then BAM! two fall right into your lap and no amount of washing is gonna get the tyre-marks out of those jeans.

Steve the Eater is my brand new Hero of All Things. Cheers BrewBunny ;).
I have never had a bus, let alone two, fall into my lap.
There's no shame in that, not everywhere's well serviced by public transport.
Thanks, BrewBunny, I needed that, I think...

I am now following The Sneeze on twitter, 'cause if I'm gonna waste my day on Internet Crack, I might as well be reading about eating Pickled Pork Rinds by someone who's funnier and fouler than I am. Oh, and with similar math skills.
Discussions on stalking and journalism turning to zombie dating and disgusting things to eat. I knew there was a reason I kept coming back here :)

Ouh, Saje, these kinda look like eyes. Yum.
Finally! The "fun" of this thread returns! Congratulations, zeitgeist! You're the proud winner of a no-prize for stories that cause large amounts of discussion!

An additional honor is awarded to you for de-railing the thread. Do we still get in trouble is a mod is the one who de-railed it?

Don't have time to look at Steve's page yet, but I just wanted to say that canned processed meat is GOOD. Especially if you don't know what blends of meat you're eating. ... What? Why are you looking at me like that?

And those eyes, GVH, remind me of snot. And okra, actually. Okra snot. :)

I eat bones all the time too, Saje. Especially during Bones. Remember the episode when the body was dissolved by the lye? And it was just fat deposits and other muck? Yum. :)

BrewBunny, I took it exactly like you did. I think zeitgeist has a dirty mind and is trying to cover it up. Pulled pork. *snorts*

Alright! Quit distracting me! I have a test to study for!
Yes, and so does the mod ;)
Good luck on your tests, people! I didn't know you were a student, zeitgeist

Also, I had to google okra :)
Good luck to both of you!
Wait, what? I'm not a student. Oh, I see! My "Yes, and so does the mod ;)" was in reply to:

Do we still get in trouble is a mod is the one who de-railed it?

Well, if you're in trouble, might as well enjoy it! >)

BTW, the test ended up being open-book. What a waste of my knowledge. :P

GVH... okra maybe snotty & eyeball-ish, but fried? It's delicious!
That really does look like snot. The thing that most amazes me about stuff like that is, is there never a point in the design, tasting, testing and manufacture when somebody says "Err, guys ? Doesn't that look a lot like, y'know, snot ? Which, if you're over the age of 6 might make it a bit unappetising ?". Apparently not. Clearly "quality control" means different things to different people.

What a waste of my knowledge. :P

But on the other hand, all that time spent learning to read was put to good use ;).
Well I thought it was very funny and that some people are coming down a bit hard on the author. Not every website can be classy enough to discuss snot and fried eyeballs and other stuff I'd rather not think about (being so not a fan of gross-out humor).

Other than that, what embers said (in the first post). Plus in the other post about "harshing her squee", which I found far funnier than any of the gross-out stuff. (go embers, somewhere your humor is appreciated). ;-)
One fries that stuff, korkster? Wow.

Zeitgeist: check. See, I was right to be all surprised there, seeing as it was untrue ;).

Saje, maybe they're thinking: wow, this'll sell like crazy to anyone under six.
They're at it again. FWIW, comments are being routinely caught and stopped as spam except from those people who know her and will circle the wagons around her.

My stopped-as-spam comment:
Sofia, you miss the point (that's also something rampant in fandom these days, FYI). The point isn't that some of us missed the humor.

Sometimes, it isn't about people missing the humor. Sometimes it's about intended humor simply not striking people as funny.

And then, sometimes, it's about one's friends riding in to try to defend failed humor by saying "it was meant to be funny". I buy that it was meant to be humorous, as did most of us. It just failed to work, for a large number of people.

That doesn't inherently make those people humor impaired.

I could think of lots of stabs at humor that I bet the authorship and readership of this very site would not find funny. That wouldn't mean they weren't intended humorously -- nor would it make the authorship and readership of this site humor impaired.

P.S. Criticism is not "hating". But thanks for playing.

P.P.S. It might behoove the authorship and readership of this site to recognize that if one is going to post provocatively, then one has a responsibility to respect the provoked.

(Meanwhile: Key lime.)


[ edited by theonetruebix on 2008-08-13 22:21 ]
I hadn't noticed before that she links directly to my comment from her blog when she says we think she's a stalker. I'd thought it was a link to the thread instead. That's interesting.

ETA: And I even had a clarifying comment here, since I guessed I was one of the people she was addressing, but she either hasn't read it or is just interpreting my first comment differently anyway.

[ edited by Sunfire on 2008-08-13 22:41 ]
I posted a comment there. I wonder if she'll publish it. Maybe she's getting nasty comments and is just deleting any that aren't familiar, b!X. I'm not saying that's right, but there may be more to it than we know.

ETA: I see my comment now. Was she removing things after the fact, b!X?

[ edited by Sunfire on 2008-08-13 22:59 ]
Nice clarification, Sunfire - she did publish it, and you really nailed it.

(It appeared as though some non-spammy comments were getting blocked as spam before they could be posted - though what was triggering the blocking is unclear.)
My intention wasn't to suggest deliberate blocking to prevent criticism. Just to state the fact that for most of the day, after the initial burst of critical comments, everything except people she knows was getting stopped at the spam wall.

And no, to my knowledge there was no after-the-fact deletions.

[ edited by theonetruebix on 2008-08-13 23:45 ]
Ah, ok. I misunderstood, sorry. Thanks for explaining.
Personally, I think this one is done. It's now a closed circle: the more you (collective, impersonal) try to explain/justify the unfunniness, the more you can be hoisted for not getting the meta-funniness . . .

In any event, there's no need to defend Whedonesque either here or there, since it's not actually a person, but merely a faceless corporation that exists only to make enormous profits encourage people to have fun and be happy about Joss! Seriously, I'm long resigned to seeing comments about how W is all this or that, as if it a monolith, rather than lots of cheerful and civil voices in discussion. ;-) La la la.
You capitalist running pig-dog fascist exploiter of the working class are completely right, SNT.
All these strike-throughs make me feel like we're back on the picket line.
Well, I'm glad you have finally shown an ounce of common sense - I mean, who on earth do you think you are with your epithets and your choice words and your hoity-toity-ness, really. At last you've had the decency to agree, QG. :-)
No one's ever accused me of decency before, Mr. SNT, either under or over the strikethroughs. If I was a Humorless FreakTM I might have to see a lawyer about that.

Oh. Oh, yeah.

Nevermind.

And I absolutely do not know why this all has just made me miss Our billz, but it did.

The nerve of that guy, thinking that getting a college edumacation is more important that posting on whedonesque. You can speech just finely without schooling. Yo.
As usual, much wisdom and most excellent irreverence from the admins here. It's got to be the most windmill-tiltingest thing I can do to argue about such things. Especially on the internet. Which I think may be 95% windmill-powered anyway.
Haha! The internet is indeed windmill powered where its not just powered by the wind of hot air.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home