Home > Fan Mail > Holy Shit! I Have Fans! (Fan Mail)

Holy Shit! I Have Fans! (Fan Mail)

Ok SamTheGreek, I want to apologize.

When you first came up to me with your soft shoulders and callow writing styles I had no idea that I was speaking to the bravest man in the entire abridged fanboy universe. I had thought this was another kid that seemed to miss the point, and just needed a little correcting. But no… you, SamTheG(r)eek, you yourself braved the mighty A.C. You spelunked your way into the depths of the Wasted Time Lair and took on the Jabberwocky himself!

Aperio Contra in the eyes of fanboys

… and was taken out hastily with my loosely veiled Dick Joke attack (hotkeyed of f8). But you, you alone braved to actually post on my site with your valid criticisms and solid logic. And though I may seem mean to you, I can say I now respect you more than any man on the internet. So I apologize for all of the mean things I said about you (especially behind your back).

Recently, I noticed I was getting a fair number of hits and I tried to figure out what was going on. I found that Paradox had posted a link to my site on the boxofdanger forum… And he was endorsing it… Well, I was taken aback! Last time he had posted to me, I had got the distinct impression that he wanted me to “get fucked,” (paraph.) and I would never hear from him again! Not that I’m complaining of course; it was like a soothing massage to an already overinflated ego.

I scrolled down and I had found that, holy shit, some people were paying attention to this blog of half-minded rants! I went through many o’ comments and criticism with the most constructive of attitude that all good critics have (you know… the one where everyone but them are idiots?). Some people made good, albeit inconsistent criticisms, some were funny (like the castration bit), and some were damn-right disturbing (like, again, the castration bit).

So after the initial shock, I looked through the comments and picked out the criticisms (that can call themselves criticisms with a straight face), and I decided to answer them.

I have not functionally edited any of these posts to make my readers look stupid. For readability sake, I have posted my “fan mail,” in bold, and my responses will stay in the soothing plain black.

HonoraryMember writes
… you think this guy is funny? Really?

Anyways, while I agree with some of his opinions — that LK’s Yugioh is good, but has been a bit stale recently — it’d be nice if his reviews actually had analysis rather than overly generalized statements.

“LK is too gimmicky.”
Maybe. What does the term “gimmicky” mean, specifically? And can you give me specific examples of gimmicks in his show?

“Gimmicky is bad when overdone. Unless you’re someone like Mel Brooks. Then it’s okay, cause he’s a gimmick king.”
Wait… so someone who is funny with gimmicks even in the long run is a gimmick king. Ok, but what do they do that makes them stay funny? I mean, besides the fact that they stay funny even in the long run, how can we separate a gimmick king from a regular schmo? Cause otherwise it’s just circular logic that means nothing. Or just a made up term in order to excuse your giving a pass to some comedians you like while condemning the rest.

This guy watches something and gives his opinions, but his analysis is way too generalized. It’s almost as if he saw only a few episodes of the show, and because he based his entire opinion off of that, can’t give us better analysis. And that’s not right. Also, his analysis is a bit shallow. By that I mean he has no good insights. He said nothing we couldn’t tell by watching it ourselves. A good critic will bring up a point that one hadn’t realized or thought of himself (or herself). And this guy didn’t do any of that.

Like I said, we need a good abridged critic. But this guy is SO NOT IT.

Ok, my faith in humanity isn’t completely destroyed; first one off the list shows some good arguments and valid criticisms. I will answer them in order:

It’d be nice if his reviews actually had analysis rather than overly generalized statements.

Ok, first of all, if you hadn’t noticed I don’t really go over much if I don’t have a lot to criticize. But, as featured in my Yu Yu Hakusho Abridged and Bustgunner Abridged reviews, I actually generally go over the parts that I didn’t like and showed them all pink and naked. The problem is that without criticism I’m like a bird with clipped wings. Sure you can get me to squawk “It’s Good!” but don’t expect me to fly around the room doing tricks. The fact is that it’s difficult to come up with material on what a series did well, without outright quoting it:

“So, you remember that time when Tristen Said “Holy #@%^ on a #@%^ sandwich!” that was funny right?” doesn’t seem to roll off the tongue and onto the paper as well as you would think… The thing is, when it comes to comedy, it’s really the lines and things that happen that make it good and funny. The only good things I can say is that it is funny and well presented… which I did. I thought I couldn’t be clear enough.

“LK is too gimmicky.”

First, I struggle to find the point in which I stated that YGOTAS is “too gimmicky.” Yes I mentioned it was gimmicky, but every time I did I made sure to also mention the fact that gimmicks are not necessarily bad. Every run-on joke you’ve ever seen is a gimmick, and I would bet money that every person reading this has quoted a run-on joke amongst your friends (for those that have real friends).

The thing is: I had tried something new here and gave my first impression of a time long long ago before I became a cynical critic. When I first clicked on the yugiohabridged.com I was bright eyed about this new potential of comedy, fresh from Teamfourstar’s Dragon Ball Z Abridged, and excited to explore this new land. When I first logged on to Yu Gi Oh!: The Abridged Series, I noticed the “gimmicks” and prejudged the show, skip ahead to the moral of the story, my first impressions were wrong. I don’t think I could have been clearer if I graphically depicted a love affair with his YouTube account.

What does the term “gimmicky” mean, specifically?

Well, it depends on who you ask, but a gimmick is kind of like a shtick, but with more gags. You know like a spoof, but done in a routine, more or less, that clear enough? Good.

Alright Alright, seriously, a gimmick is a special joke that gives unique quality to a series. In the context in which I put it (because English is awesome), it meant that it had many jokes that would be novel and genuinely funny at first, until it was driven down your throat (by using it every episode) because fans are pretentious and annoying, and only write hate blogs when you don’t entertain them! (And now I pause to look over to my site), yeah, kind of like that.

Being “gimmicky” means you rely so heavily on your gimmicks that it robs the show (or what have you), of any substance. But as I went over, fairly specifically I might add, while YGOTAS came off as gimmicky, the gimmicks worked well and it still was funny.

People who watch a lot of comedy are particularly avoidant of gimmick humor (for the reasons that I actually spent two paragraphs over viewing), because gimmicks more often than not run dry, and quickly at that. If you’ve ever watched an episode of How I Met Your Mother, or Two and a Half Men, you now know what happens gimmicks go wild (and my condolences are with you).

Examples of gimmicks are “That’s Superspecial Awesome!”, “Children’s Card Games,” and god help me, “In America.” What gave me the impression that the series would be gimmicky was the fact that two of these gimmicks appeared in the first goddamn episode. When I fast forwarded to later episodes (as I mentioned in the articles) I confirmed my suspicion, and walked on.

As I have already mentioned before (and as was the moral of my particular story) that first impressions can be bullshit, and gimmicks can stay good; As long as the person doing them is good at gimmicks, which brings me to.

“Gimmicky is bad when overdone. Unless you’re someone like Mel Brooks. Then it’s okay, cause he’s a gimmick king.”

Again, I’m trying to figure out where I said this particular quote, because it seems halfway thought out. Maybe you meant:

“Now, Aperio!” You might say, “How come you’re bashing gimmicky people on the article you are dedicating to Leslie Nielson?” This is true, Leslie Nielson was nothing if he wasn’t gimmicky, but Leslie Nielson belonged to a special club for special people known as the Gimmick Kings. This group include Grouncho Marx, The Three Stooges, and of course Mel Brooks.”

This segue, to point out that gimmicky humor can be used well, was my way of leading into how good I thought the show was. Which was pointed out later when I actually admit I thought the show was really good, by making an analogy of my scandalous affair with Little Kuriboh’s YouTube account (unless you missed it the first time). I was using these elites as examples so maybe people might actually get what I mean by, “Gimmick King.”

This obviously failed, as shown of your next “point”:

I mean, besides the fact that they stay funny even in the long run, how can we separate a gimmick king from a regular schmo?

This is honestly a good question. I guess my initial answer is to Sam Fisher a pie into his face, and see if the reaction is comical. If it is, it’s a good start, if it’s not… well you might be in jail… say hello Henry.

I hate to tell you, but in any world of criticism there is abstract words used to define those who are able to consistently maintain art over a long time. “The Kings of Comedy,” “The Spirits of Rock,” both of these phrase mean that these people were able to become “Classic,” another technical word that means “maintaining value over a long period of time.” In all art there is a form of it, and a Gimmick King is no different. A Gimmick King is a person who knows how to balance gimmicks, and tastefully add on to gimmicks so that they still have the smooth flavor, while adding a little so not to trigger the “Oh, I’ve heard that one before,” reflex that is trained in every critic’s mind.

A true gimmick king never loses his novelty (his “gimmick”), and is able to make you genuinely laugh over and over for 10 – 20+ years. A “Gimmick King” is a person that has been listened to for a long time and has never lost his particular charm. Or as I already wrote

“If all the gimmicky people in the world were retards (Which It’s my supposition that yes they are), than these few and proud would be the idiot savants, who somehow have taken the tired out Gimmick humor and made it entertaining.”

Maybe I should have been more specific, but forgive me, I showed credit to my fellow man, and figure they understood “critic words,” like gimmicky.

Cause otherwise it’s just circular logic that means nothing.

Congratulations! You, without any help, have figured out the point of the entire blog. Have you honestly read any of my work? If so, have you not figured out that my articles are based in logical fallacies? (For example: “…that this a hate speech satire. Mean to be read with a grain of salt, and a good humor. How does this differ from my open hate for disclaimers? Well, Because go fuck yourself.” Featured in my Bustgunner comments)

Or just a made up term in order to excuse your giving a pass to some comedians you like while condemning the rest

Ding Ding ding.

We have a winner! I did make up the word. The thing is I gave examples, used it in a context, and short of giving it a dictionary definition, I made it as easy as possible for the people reading it to infer the meaning. You know, infer, that thing they taught you in kindergarten? (I should know, I took it twice)  The fact is I assigned a new phrase for these people to better define them because, “The guys who did funny gimmicks for a really, really long time and stayed funny all that time. While I watched blissfully wasting my life away between “Studying, in my room,” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue into liquid gold.

I’m sorry, I was weak and resorted to shortening a phrase to save me time, and not take yours. You caught me.

The next two I’m going to talk about together.

This guy watches something and gives his opinions, but his analysis is way too generalized.

I have to say that you are right on the money. Seriously, no argument, that is exactly what I do and I’m glad you’re caught up. However I am a bit perplexed, because the dictionary definition of “critic” includes the following:

“…the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” and “one given to harsh or captious judgement.”

At this point you might as well just call me critical.

So, in essence, since comedy is completely subjective (as in: I like good comedy, like satire and ironic comedy, whereas you like PTAS), I don’t think I can give much more than my opinion before I start arbitrarily assigning numbers to how much it made me shit my pants. The problem with that approach is that all comedy has its own distinct merits, and to make a copy/paste system for the entire beast would miss out on the nuances of other abridged series, or alas other comedies. I prefer the general opinionated approach because talking about “did I like it,” is really the only valid fact of the day.

Here is an exercise, find a good comedy reviewer and look at his site. First you’ll find that rarely do they actually go in piece by piece, but rather they give a small overview of what it is, and judge it on its merits (vaguely, I might add). Sometimes reviewers will even skip part 1, because we can reasonably assume our target audience knows what we’re talking about.

So, all this business about not being specific enough, you have any advice on how I might accomplish this? Because honestly I’m lost.

Also, I’d like to say, did you read your statement before you posted this sentence? Your post was nothing if it wasn’t riddled with generalities and opinions. About halfway through your post you should have figured out: when criticizing a person of their merits, you’re going to come off as general, because specificities make you come off as unoriginal. When trying to give reviews, and still trying to stay “somewhat” original, you have to skate the lines of generality because, save directly quoting the show, there’s not much you can specifically add to what they did well. Then you’re permanently stuck in this role about describing how the writing/show flowed, talking about editing, and giving a summation of whether or not you (in your own opinion, because if you can control other’s opinion… then call me, I’d like to learn that trick) liked what you saw and are you willing to endorse it.

And then of course there’s…

It’s almost as if he saw only a few episodes of the show, and because he based his entire opinion off of that

Do you know exactly how much I wish you were right? Unfortunately, before I ever consider reviewing anything, I have to swear to waste my time (get it?) and watch it in full. Now, in some series, this is a pleasure (such as YGOTAS), in some… Well this is torture (such as Bustgunner). But, I can’t really complain, because I watch them on my own volition… Unless of course I have my own blog, then I can bitch to my heart’s content.

A good critic will bring up a point that one hadn’t realized or thought of himself (or herself).

This one made my brain hurt a little bit. So, I’m supposed to come up with an opinion that nobody else in the world has thought up themselves…Let’s excuse the mindboggling logistics of that and focus on the fact that your initial problem with my review is that my first impression was that it was gimmicky. An opinion that I have yet to hear repeated anywhere else…

My second point was that, despite that initial flaw, I liked it. I don’t know how I can express that opinion any better. Maybe I could have just skipped it and gone onto something really awful (I’m looking at you, The Official Deathnote Abridged), and just continued my flame war on the internet, but as the bravest man in the entire abridged fanboy universe, pointed out: I have no credibility if I don’t say what is good, as well as what is bad.

Like I said, we need a good abridged critic. But this guy is SO NOT IT.

Alright, I’m just going to answer in the same way as I answer anybody who doesn’t like my critique or comedy. Now pay attention here, because I don’t want to repeat this. If you don’t like my comedy, than I’m not writing it for you (and I encourage all abridgers to hold this same attitude). If you don’t like my review, that’s fine. I’m glad to have your criticism, and you can come on any time {There’s my minimum 1 dick joke per article} you like and tell me. But don’t think I could give a shit less, I write this review for anyone who enjoys this kind of comedy and obviously somebody likes my comedy, or else the Skwib wouldn’t have linked me (sucker), or Paradox wouldn’t have raised attention to it (double sucker).

Thank You Honorary Member for reading my post, I’m always glad to get the feedback from my fans.

Next up!: The appropriately named Remix, who starts out with,

“LK is too gimmicky.”

Oh, then maybe he should try an incredibly abrasive style and shoehorning as many sh*tty analogies into his work as possible. Not that it works for Mr. Aperio Contra himself, but hey, maybe his reviews might prove useful for something besides living up to its namesake.

This AC guy is as useful as a eunuch in a whorehouse.

Ok, his first originally typed words were the exact words given by HonoraryMember just five posts beforehand, so he loses five points off the bat because he obviously can’t figure out the whole scroll wheel feature thing on his mouse. Then he goes on assuming that I want all comedy to be like me…

I’m struggling to figure out exactly how you came to the conclusion that I want everybody to use my abrasive style (besides the fact that it’s the best). The fact is that all styles have their merits, and to ask all styles to be like mine would ruin my genre, while neglecting all others. Before you know it, we’re left spiraling down the porcelain tube, where all comedies become dick and fart jokes, while forgetting all other styles to watch Ass: The Movie.

Oh! And by the way: congratulations! You have figured out the first joke you were supposed to figure out when clicking upon the site. “Oh! Living up to its namesake! The Wasted Time! How Clever!” I exclaim when reading this. Well, now that you have learned the basics of the Wasted Time, I now invite you to go a step further and read one of my posts. There you will find plenty of clever and ironic names just waiting for you to find them. Please tell me when you have gotten all of the jokes on the site (for that will have earned you some loot).

As for your last comment: out of curiosity, I ran a Google search on it. And you’ll be glad to know that you picked the right handle in Remix. Because at 5,370 results, having something to do with “eunuchs” and “whorehouses,” I am left believing that a remix is the sum of your creative talents.

Directly under Remix, is a poster called Chrome (seriously, what’s it with people’s handles being the taglines of albums? What’s next, LP?).


All his stuff comes across like he’s trying too hard to be funny, and failing miserably. I’m not a fan of that rambling, loquacious style either – too many words, not enough content.

And that abridged video ain’t really all that bad compared to some of the stuff out there. I don’t see why it got so much attention, it’s as base an effort as most stuff.

Including apparently his post.

Protip: if you’re going to moan about how much effort is put into where, you might want to put some effort in the post that you are kvetching in. What abridged series did you not agree with me on? You seriously never mention a fucking word about it!

And as to your initial point: let me just point out

I’m not a fan of that rambling, loquacious style either – too many words, not enough content.

BAM! Using my Holmsian deduction skills, I think I just solved the case and figured out why you don’t like it. By your own admission, you do not like the particular style of comedy I use (apparently because I use words). So maybe that’s why you didn’t think of it as good.

Not because I’m trying too hard… while apparently not trying hard enough at the same time…

Next up! We find another appropriately named poster: XeroStyle. Who in a strike of brilliance decided to post the following line:

Bad comedies are the worst. You can’t even laugh at how bad they are.

I agree totally, but before we get into it, let’s look at Xero(0)Style’s’ profile picture:

This, my friends, is Tim, or Maybe Eric (Or it could be one of the other guys, I just don’t care), from Tim and Eric’s Awesome Show Great Job! or as it’s known in my house: “Who the fuck would watch this shit?” Tim an Eric’s Awesome Show Great Job! Is about what would happen if two guys played out every scene from Kids in the Hall, but made it somehow gayer.

So, to ZeroSubstance XeroStyle, all I have to say is that I am Glad that I am considered bad comedy in your book, so long as I never have to be associated with Tim and Eric.

So thank you X(Z)eroStyle, for teaching us all that if you don’t have anything creative to add you can always smile and

Next on the chooping bloock is Roooster. Who writes.

Didn’t eunuchs only exist because of their usefulness in whorehouses/concubine dwellings? I thought their primary function was to help run the place without giving into the temptation of sleeping around…

Ok, that was pretty funny…

Moving on,

I guess, considering that every other post I pretty much already answered, this concludes my fan mail from PTAS. I must express a thank you to all of my fans. All of your support has been very helpful, and I look forward to comments like this (Where else am I going to get my material?) The lesson here is if you don’t like something you should take a page out of the book of the bravest man in the entire abridged fanboy universe and just post it on his site instead of hiding in a forum.

Unless of course you have your own blog, then you can just post it there and hide safely in your den because double standards kick ass.

BUT WAIT! Hold on! Let it never be said I never listen to my fans! Since everybody seemed to have missed the point entirely in my original post, I feel obligated to drop my sack {and one dick joke to grow on} on this subject again. So I vow this day that I will work tirelessly (and effortlessly) to write my very first Wasted Time Rereview. In which I will tackled the points left out in my last post. (things like… you know… “He genuinely funny and I look forward to everything I see him in…  finally we have somebody who can simply make you laugh.” … and stuff like that.)

… I’ll get to it next week.

Jack “A.C.” Shawhan is a satire writer, critic and Jabberwocky for The Wasted Time. Self proclaimed: “Jester to the for the monarchs of the “Who The Hell Cares?” Empire,” A.C. authors a weekly article imaginatively called: The Wasted Time Review, a critical review on the comedic idiot savants that we call internet publishers. Apart from picking every sordid detail out of what is splattered on the net and dangling perfection beyond the reach of all who wish to approach it, Jack “Aperio Contra” Shawhan is a writer with a long background in literary history and comedy.

The Wasted Time©, 2010.

Categories: Fan Mail

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: