I take it the intro was an attempt at comedic writing. If not, I might cry.
Quite honestly, I really don’t know what to do with that intro. There’s so much dumbass, not funny babbling going on.
For example, quote:
“…which rewards a writer's craft by putting numbers next to it, so that others can now say definitively that one writer’s devotion was greater than another’s by a clear numerical factor.”
Wrong. What it will tell you is that in this particular poll it was awarded a number to say something about its place in the quality scale of shows. It doesn’t say anything about “devotion” since the quality was polled.
Another example:
“Furthermore, the list was also compiled through online voting…” and “Quibbling with the idea that The Sopranos is the best-written show, you may as well be quibbling with math.”Yes, because results in mathematical proofs are decided by online voting. Wrong again.
“No more will anyone argue whether, say, Mad Men is a better-written show than Breaking Bad.”Yes, they will.
“Meanwhile, more modern favorites Parks And Recreation or Community exist beyond the list as some incalculable uncertainty only Stephen Hawking could probably define, like string theory or Charles In Charge.”Yes, I’m sure Stephen Hawking is dying to disproof their non-existence in the list. I might even have a stab at it. Let’s see. Yes…here we go: These are young shows which have not yet have the chance to proof themselves and therefore can’t compete with the classics of which we know they’ll deliver or delivered. I think that’s fairly bulletproof. Eat your heart out, Stephen Hawking.
That piece of writing is a glorious achievement of stuffing two paragraphs full with non-facts and untrues.
Go ahead, critize my grammer and spelling.
No comments:
Post a Comment