Serious complaint

William Woodruff wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Don_Campbell wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Many years ago I published an article in an academic journal criticizing the common practices involved in raising animals for human consumption. That article has since been reprinted in many textbooks for introductory-level ethics classes in colleges and universities, and my article has been assigned (and sometimes even read!) in many such courses. The article contains an imaginary example involving a person who really loves chocolate, but is involved in a car accident which damages his "Godiva gland" which secretes the hormone responsible for enjoying the taste of chocolate, "cocoamone". The Godiva gland and cocoamone are both, of course, fictitious. However, I still get frequent emails from students who have read my paper, asking me where to find information about this gland and this hormone, because they've never heard of it previously.

I suppose this is understandable (though still amusing). The example occurs in a scholarly article, which also contains a lot of serious arguments (though, to be fair, one or two jokes as well). I can see how students just aren't expecting some lighthearted frivolity to be mixed in with a serious discussion of a serious, and quite gruesome, subject.

But I thought that this post on this discussion forum wouldn't be quite as difficult to interpret. I thought I had given enough clues that it was parody. First, there was the description of my repeatedly pressing the side of my EVF hump to get a non-existent flash to spring up. Then there was the hyperventilating style, like when I claimed of my previous cameras that Every. Single. One. had built-in flashes, and immediately took that back. Surely, you could tell I wasn't serious, when I complained that Canon hadn't sent me a $600 flash for free to go with my $1100 refurbished camera? And finally, I literally quoted the title of another current thread ("Why is Canon so mean?"), and finished with a really over the top repetition. I know that most of you got it, but some really seemed to take it seriously. As someone else pointed out, my post was really long, and maybe people just responded without reading it all. Yes, and so is this one, so I expect lots of people to respond with questions about the Godiva gland and cocoamone. Like, where can we get some of that stuff? How much does it cost? Is it legal in Alabama?

1) I read the original post. 2) I looked down the thread and found this post and read it as the only other post. Yup, I got it.

I once started a thread comparing a .5 mp camera obtained by collecting cereal boxtops with a 12 mp camera:

.5MP giveaway camera's IQ beats 12MP P&S!

I recognized "the form." I didn't need to read any responses to know that sarcasm detectors are sometimes turned off. I'm a retired academic scientist but I confess I never published such sarcasm in an academic journal.

Don

Thanks for that laugh, Don. I didn't hang out much on the Powershot forum, so I don't remember that thread, but the pattern is pretty much exactly the same. A lot of people get it, and a fair number don't, but go off on serious discussions of topics like gas mileage.

As for publishing academic articles and books, I do like to throw in a few jokes to keep my readers from dozing off. One of the reviewers on my latest book commented on my familiar "lighthearted" style. I'm pretty sure he meant that as a compliment. At least that's how I choose to interpret it.

Humor, especially when it accurately targeted, can be one of the best ways to actually make a point, even in the most serious settings.

I am a lawyer, a persecutor actually. I slip one-liners into legal briefs all of the time.

You mean like that one? Please tell me that was intentional.

In part to make an otherwise unbroken stream of legalese less painful to read, and in part to highlight the silliness of the worst absurdities the are presented in opposing briefs. In trial, if you can reframe the opposing counsel's argument so that the jury actually starts laughing at it, you know that you have made your point.

The worst thing about academia, is that it is full of academics who would rather be academic than readable. You know, the kind of people who want to be published, but don't care if they are read.

Spot on.