2005-08-24

The LCP Poll

Could this man have been an inspiration for the lcp?
Does anyone remember the year Saturday Night had the phone in poll about the lobster? Phone one 900 number and the lobster would live, phone the other and it would die. The lobster lived.

A year later they did a similar vote. This time if the vote went one way, Andy Kaufman would never appear on SNL again, the other way, he would appear again. Andy lost. I paid fifty cents to vote against him because I thought that would be the funnier outcome. It was reported years later that Kaufman engineered the whole thing.

There hasn't been a lot of humour in the 5M's blog, but this new poll made me laugh out loud for a good while. It's a list of choices worthy of the Chair.

14 comments:

The Independent Observer said...

The Muse's continuing story has painted the lcp in a rather unflattering light. She has seen fit to cast aspersions on his wardrobe, choice of women, alleged insensitivity, level of originality and, gasp, his poetry. And if that wasn't enough, she concluded he would be a disappointing lover without even going near those waters. A case of not kissing, and telling. Ouch.

The poet is doing his best to bring some literary sparkle to this town. Maybe he ain't perfect. And sure, perhaps he knew the 5M would pen something about him in her blog one day. But this? Yes, it's a detailed and subtle narrative. But a little too unflinching. It's one thing to object to the content of his poem. Quite another to trash him publicly. I prefer it when the Muse errs toward discretion and mystery, which she, as a most capable writer, often does.

Let the blogger who is without fault -- or shame -- cast the first stone and vote, "Give us more dirt. There must be more dirt."

I am reminded of a February 1950 exchange at the infamous U.S. hearings led by anti-communist crusader Senator Joseph McCarthy. Special counsel for the Army, Joseph Welch, stepped in to quash McCarthy's aggressive questioning about one of Welch's professional associates, a young lawyer:

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Conch Shell said...

Okay, I like the LCP poll. But 4D, something more pertinent comes to mind. Once upon a time you told us to stop congratulating each other on our witty comments or general intelligence. It was considered wanking, I do believe. But it strikes me that you're doing a lot of "I like this, I like that . . ." with the 5M. I'm wondering if this has something to do with her knowing about our site.
But, let me tell you something, most women, probably 5M too, prefer compliments to come not too often -- but when they do, to be big ones. I'm afraid if you keep up this pace, 5M is going to find you a disingenuous pirate.

Corrie said...

IO, you took the words right out of my mouth. Rather, you took the gist of my thoughts and phrased them rather better than I may have. I agree.

Conch Shell said...

You know, though, someone famous once said that great writers must not be frightened, they must be brave with their words, and not shy away from potentially hurting others.

Conch Shell said...

Some thoughts, from the former book critic of New York Magazine:

"Famous writers are critics in the same way crocodiles are carnivores -- from birth, by training and by instinct -- but in public, with rare exceptions, they come on like saints and vegetarians."

AND

''Every time you write a bad review, you'll be hurting people in your own field. Also, what goes around comes around. Watch out. The next time you publish your own work, they'll be laying for you.''

The Independent Observer said...

A review of a book, poem or song must be direct and honest. Therefore it will sometimes be very hurtful. But so be it. Artists risk criticism -- it's part of the job. So, yes, writers should not be afraid to offend others if there is genuine purpose in their words.

A tell-all serial about a friend (even a former one) is entirely different. It is simply gossip with a thin veneer of pretension.

5th Muse said...

Ahh but you asked for it and ... it is fair.

The Independent CRTF Observer said...

Geez, Agents A and O, you two have been awfully quiet lately. Guess you've just been tied up.

Conch Shell said...

Agents A & O, were you at some place called Spins and Needles tonight?

Agatha said...

Hmmm. This is the problem with these damn polls. They have the illusion of everything just and fair, and yet the Ethics Committee has no control over them!

Conch Shell said...

This is why democracy is an imperfect system. Benevolent dictatorships, in fragile and developing blogs, may be more what is needed. Some blogs just aren't ready for democracy.

coyote said...

On the other hand, over here, a short napoleonic guy's been giving us just a little too much benevolent dictatorship. As somebody once said (I paraphrase wildly) "democracy sucks, except compared with the alternatives". Or like that.

4th Dwarf said...

For the record, I didn't vote for the lcp story. Figured it would be a conflict of interest.

I didn't vote for the Krummy Sandwich story either. Reading about food gone wrong gives me nightmares.

So I voted for the other choice. But let's keep in mind, the vast majority of the 5M's readers aren't ESIs and are beyond the nagging voices of the ethics committee.

Do you suppose the lcp will soon feel compelled to write the eventual true poem of the (5)th (M)use?

Conch Shell said...

On the other hand, he's keeping mutiny in check. No blog bloodshed yet.