|
For those of you who don't know, I am a content writer for the Grudge Match web page. Grudge Match is a web page based on fictitious (yes, fictitious) battles between cultural icons. We write the scenario and throw in some comments to give you some background information and as an hors d'oeuvre to whet your humor appetite. Then the fair readers of the web page have the opportunity to vote and send us their unique views on the match. We post a set quantity of the best responses for future generations to enjoy.
I've just finished my prep-work on a match. My opponent (we'll call him "Brian") and I worked together on a scenario. By "working together" I mean, of course, that he wrote it, I replied with "huh?", he explained it using monosyllabic words, and I said "okay." Then I wrote up some commentary, he wrote up some commentary, then I wrote up some more commentary. Finally, he wrote up the last bit of commentary. All of this is done via e-mail, mind you. I live in Minnesota and he lives in a lesser state (redundant, I know).
The key to commentary, we've found out, is NOT intelligent discourse and articulate debate. Nope, the key to commentary is making fun of your opponent. There are never too many jabs, but there can be to few. How do we know when there are too few cuts? The masses let us know in no uncertain terms.
Many people respond to matches. We can't keep all of the responses; there are just too many and we don't have the disk space and most people wouldn't have the time to read them all. So, the two commentators read the response file and they determine which ones stay and which ones go. (Typically, only ONE will cut or keep responses; the other commentator will just read through the file and nominate favorite responses for the awards.)
We get immediate (and I do mean IMMEDIATE) feedback on how poorly we did choosing the match, writing the scenario, and arguing the pros and cons. A favorite word is "suck." Unfortunately, the writers of cut responses do not receive any feedback on why their responses were cut. However, today I'll help you out a little. Here's a list of tendencies that will earn you a quick removal from the response file. Or, at least, it will create a hurdle the rest of your response will have to overcome. DISCLAIMER: I'm speaking for myself only. Other commentators/editors may have different thoughts.
Asking about the "All mangled and killed" button Long ago (well before I had even heard of Grudge Match), there was a match between Wesley Crusher and Barney the Dinosaur. For some reason, the powers that be included the voting option of "both mangled and killed." Without fail, match response files are still littered with "where is the 'all mangled and killed' button?" or some variation of that. It gets old quickly ... almost as quickly as those responses get cut from the response file. However, people have gotten pretty clever with their adaptations of the response. For instance, a match might relate to Mr. T. and a response might be "where is the 'All pitied and fooled!' button?" Sure, you didn't fall off your chair laughing now, but it might have been funny in context.
"'Nuff said." Quite often, it isn't.
Quoting vote totals There is a link available on Grudge Match that tells you the current vote totals for all combatants. Please do not use this in your response. If you write "I can't believe Worf is currently beating Chewbacca 7-2 ..." Those will also be the odds that your response won't last another 72 seconds in the file. Unless you're hoping for a hilarious Dewey Defeats Truman re-enactment, it ain't gonna be funny. (Besides, I would have voted for Dewey.) (Or Truman.) (Or Nader.)
Questioning the commentator's intelligence. Sometimes it's almost passive-aggressive: "I was going to vote for Mr. Clean until Mark wrote in the commentary ..." Sometimes it is blatant: "Mark, you are so stupid!" Either way, the rest of your response better be sidesplitting because I'm looking for a reason to cut it. If you want to call me names, send me an e-mail message. Don't waste the response file on that. There is no chance it will make the cut. Well, okay, it has a 50-50 chance of making the cut; depending on which commentator is editing the response file.
Mentioning how many others will say the same thing you're going to say Every so often, we, as commentators, don't know something obvious, forget something obvious, or just simply exclude something obvious. When we do, get about 50 responses stating "I'll be one of about 50 responses mentioning that you didn't mention something obvious." Being one of about 50 responses that does anything the same makes you extremely not unique. Set the bar higher for yourself. I certainly do (set the bar higher for you, that is). If you're going to mention something we excluded, be original and clever.
Original and clever punctuation choices It s really annoying trying to reed someone s response when they decide punctuation is for loosers isnt it what s slightly less annoying is READING RESPONSES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS THERE IS A SHIFT KEY LEARN TO USE IT of course you could at least try too spell correctly granted non of us is purfect but at least give it a werl thank yoo
Stealing overused movie and television quotes So, you decided to use a worn out movie quote without giving due credit. Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never plagiarize movie and television writers on Grudge Match!" When we see that, we're all "Houston, we've got a problem." Then, we delete the response with an "Hasta la vista, baby!"
Swearing Yes, yes. Swearing is a part of life. Most of us do it. However, swearing for the sake of swearing is more likely to be offensive than funny. We don't try to be offensive on Grudge Match; we try to be funny. Dumbass!
Lengthy rambles Don't drone on and on with your responses. The short reason for this is the axiom "Brevity is the soul of wit." The long reason is that we don't have a lot of disk space. We need high concentration humor and you rarely achieve that with long responses. Remember, attention spans have been shortened. If you're going to test us on that, you might as well tell us how drunk you are.
Telling us how drunk you are Okay, we may not be grounded here, but we like to think it takes some brain-power to submit a quality response. Reminding us that some drunk can be as clever as we think we are is no way to score points with us. If you're drunk, fine; just don't tell us.
"Where's the blood?" Unfortunately, Mr. President, you need to realize there are more to life than death and destruction. How about an intellectual match? (Well, as close to "intellectual" as Grudge Match gets.) If you're only interest in a web site is physical destruction, you'd best pick a web site with images.
So those are most of the big faux pas that will quickly get you eliminated from the response file. Of course, there are exceptions to them. If you're clever or funny enough, you can get away with any--or all--of these stigmas.
'Nuff said!
return to Commentary index
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not neccessarily reflect those of the rest of the family.
mark@wentzmania.com.
© 2003, Mark Wentz
|