Ranking
Why you call me stupid?? YOU NO NO MY IQ LVL!!!!1111!!!!!!!!1one!!!!!!!!!eleven!!!!! But no joke, Judging some before you know them is kind of harsh.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
RAWWRH - have you read any 20th century archetypal literary criticism of the masterwork that was your last post? Allow me to remind you of the full text - it was genius in its brevity:

Pointless post is pointless. What up people of RAWR?

Now, of course, the first act of the passage, "Pointless post is pointless," is simultaneously a charming allusion to, and a rejection of, the worldview and artistic preferences of the Dadaist movement, particularly the work of René Magritte. His famous "Treachery of Images" featured, as you well know, the image of a pipe affixed with the caption "ceci n'est pas une pipe" (this is not a pipe). Although Magritte's work focused on overcoming the widespread obsessive equivalency between images and the objects they represented, it was widely misinterpreted as a simplistic contrarian statement, the kind made popular by the most banal of the Dadaists who waved his "ne pas pipe" like a banner for years to come. It is this misinterpretation that RAWWRH's mimics, yet mocks.

Perhaps in prompt to a borderline-universal focus on logic at the expense of literary styling that was taken to the extreme in the later half of the 20th century, and has been proudly upheld through the 21st, his text follows a typical archetype which can be stated as "X Y is X." As Rene Descartes' infamous "cogito ergo sum," (I think therefore I am) aimed to serve as a proof of the author's existence, it has been noted of late that the proof of "I" exists even before the completion of the phrase. The very conjugation of "cogito" inherently implicates a singular first person entity, which means the "ergo sum" itself is merely a garnish on the metaphysical plate. In this manner does "pointless post is pointless" continue to tease yet embrace its predecessors. The phonemes "pointless post" already contain the semantic data to conclude the statement is "Having little or no sense, use, or purpose." And that is how, not without humor, the remaining phrase "is pointless," is pointless - a semantic garnish, without flavor, art, or style. Yet perhaps this is what RAWWRH intended?

Now let us continue to the second act. "What up people of RAWR?" The most notable characteristic of this passage is the dropped copula. The thought that this collection of words is probably meant to evoke is "What is up, people of RAWR?" However, the omission of "to be," the only verb in the passage, is quite clearly done intentionally. What was the author trying to make us realize? Was it a statement about the rigors of the English language? Was it yet another mocking jab directed at the conflict between the "uptight" prescriptive linguists and the "lazy" linguistic laity? Or, as the work of Joyce, was this the product of deliberately speeding through the creation of a text without editing, for the "snapshot" effect that can be produced by such writing? It is possible that we may never know for sure.

And that uncertainty is a powerful tool. The half-cadence left by RAWWRH's writing - the ultimate question mark - defies literary standards, leaving the reader with a question - but no answer. Although a sample question is filled in for us "What up people of RAWR" - it is this critic's belief that the author intends for us to take the space before his question mark, and fill it in with our own question. It is in this way that the author maintains a dialogue with the reader. And as Descartes needed only utter "cogito" to provide proof of the "I," so did RAWWRH provide the ultimate question much sooner than we may assume he intended. "What up people of RAWR?"

"What?"

What indeed, RAWRRH. What indeed.
~gill066
Last edited by gill066; Mar 11, 2012 at 01:40 AM.
I can hear chants and incantations and some guy is mentionin' me in his prayers / I don't know what it is but there's definitely something going on upstairs

RAWR
Originally Posted by gill066 View Post
RAWWRH - have you read any 20th century archetypal literary criticism of the masterwork that was your last post? Allow me to remind you of the full text - it was genius in its brevity:



Now, of course, the first act of the passage, "Pointless post is pointless," is simultaneously a charming allusion to, and a rejection of, the worldview and artistic preferences of the Dadaist movement, particularly the work of René Magritte. His famous "Treachery of Images" featured, as you well know, the image of a pipe affixed with the caption "ceci n'est pas une pipe" (this is not a pipe). Although Magritte's work focused on overcoming the widespread obsessive equivalency between images and the objects they represented, it was widely misinterpreted as a simplistic contrarian statement, the kind made popular by the most banal of the Dadaists who waved his "ne pas pipe" like a banner for years to come. It is this misinterpretation that RAWWRH's mimics, yet mocks.

Perhaps in prompt to a borderline-universal focus on logic at the expense of literary styling that was taken to the extreme in the later half of the 20th century, and has been proudly upheld through the 21st, his text follows a typical archetype which can be stated as "X Y is X." As Rene Descartes' infamous "cogito ergo sum," (I think therefore I am) aimed to serve as a proof of the author's existence, it has been noted of late that the proof of "I" exists even before the completion of the phrase. The very conjugation of "cogito" inherently implicates a singular first person entity, which means the "ergo sum" itself is merely a garnish on the metaphysical plate. In this manner does "pointless post is pointless" continue to tease yet embrace its predecessors. The phonemes "pointless post" already contain the semantic data to conclude the statement is "Having little or no sense, use, or purpose." And that is how, not without humor, the remaining phrase "is pointless," is pointless - a semantic garnish, without flavor, art, or style. Yet perhaps this is what RAWWRH intended?

Now let us continue to the second act. "What up people of RAWR?" The most notable characteristic of this passage is the dropped copula. The thought that this collection of words is probably meant to evoke is "What is up, people of RAWR?" However, the omission of "to be," the only verb in the passage, is quite clearly done intentionally. What was the author trying to make us realize? Was it a statement about the rigors of the English language? Was it yet another mocking jab directed at the conflict between the "uptight" prescriptive linguists and the "lazy" linguistic laity? Or, as the work of Joyce, was this the product of deliberately speeding through the creation of a text without editing, for the "snapshot" effect that can be produced by such writing? It is possible that we may never know for sure.

And that uncertainty is a powerful tool. The half-cadence left by RAWWRH's writing - the ultimate question mark - defies literary standards, leaving the reader with a question - but no answer. Although a sample question is filled in for us "What up people of RAWR" - it is this critic's belief that the author intends for us to take the space before his question mark, and fill it in with our own question. It is in this way that the author maintains a dialogue with the reader. And as Descartes needed only utter "cogito" to provide proof of the "I," so did RAWWRH provide the ultimate question much sooner than we may assume he intended. "What up people of RAWR?"

"What?"

What indeed, RAWRRH. What indeed.
~gill066

gill0664president
Oblivion: that wasn't hilarious
Oblivion: it was brilliantly complex though
Oblivion: hands down man
Oblivion: today I genuinely believe more than I ever did before
Oblivion: that you are better than me
Oblivion: gg NutHug

Like my stuff?
Join my FunClub or subscribe on Youtube