Thread Closed
(08-21-2015, 03:56 PM)Verad Wrote:(08-21-2015, 03:51 PM)Oli! Wrote:(08-21-2015, 03:41 PM)Ignacius Wrote:(08-21-2015, 03:30 PM)Verad Wrote:(08-21-2015, 03:27 PM)Ignacius Wrote: I think he's being sarcastic, Oli, it's fine! Â I went to architecture school, nobody on this forum has a chance of making me feel bad if they tried. Â The KSA was the mental equivalent of the agoge. Â I think the better response is:
Oh God, but who has time for them?
Not quite! It is, historically, a snob's argument, the same way that Shakespeare couldn't have possibly written his plays because there's just no way anybody in the middle-class could have written things that sharp. Perhaps you are not consciously being a snob about it, and that is fine.Â
As for time, well, you went to architecture school, and I to a liberal arts degree. Clearly the time is self-evident.
Wit isn't necessarily the tool of the snob. Â Just recall that wit was the province of the literate and the educated, and for the better part of a few thousand years, the only people getting taught to read, in fact taught at all, were the rich and privileged.
Off-topic I guess, but again, not quite correct. This was not the case in all cultures, and in fact, was mostly the case in Europe. Tribal societies schooled all their members in what was known, and in their history, local geography, culture, etcetera. China practically invented the standardized test for the sake of admitting government officials for employment and further education (though whether or not it was aimed at the masses or the few varied by dynasty). The Aztecs implemented mandatory schooling for all over the age of 15. These are just a few examples.
Intelligence, wit, and education aren't class-specific all the time, everywhere. It varies greatly, and it might help our view of this topic as a whole to stop viewing it strictly through that lens.
This is quite true, and I thank you for pointing it out. To clarify, when I'm speaking of wit, I'm speaking primarily in the British and American contexts.
That said, I think your point can lead to another - there is no real "wit," in this case, because wit is a culturally defined concept. The idea that speaking with a quick retort is a marker of intelligence may hold no weight in a culture where that's considered to be a marker of thoughtlessness. In this view, being witty in RP is simple: You already are, to somebody. It even dovetails nicely with the idea that wittiness is based on reception.
Which would be fine, except, as the OP has expressed, we aren't talking about someone's reaction to their own wit. Â The idea is whether someone who isn't possessed of it, in the view of anyone, can force that view on the audience by saying their character is "witty". Â Which, yes, happens. Â If you think you're witty, and all you're doing is interjecting relatively dull and not particularly enjoyable observations, you will most likely get downplayed or frozen out of conversation. Â Which is a particular problem for people who want to play a genius, but will routinely have other players running circles around their best-applied logic in conversation.
You can think you're as witty as you'd like, or quantify it however you want, but the aim of RP is to publicly air that wit, and therefore it has to be received by the audience. Â And if you fail, you fail. Â If one person is fine with it, but nine people roundly think you're just trolling the conversation, you've made a pretty grievous error.
The problem is that most people who try to punch above their weight aren't recognized at failing to be witty, they're labeled trolls and discarded. Â We don't even think about them again, they were just people who dropped into conversation being crass, crude, and not particularly enjoyable company. Â Nobody is going to reverse that opinion because the character is meant to be written as a genius when the character, because of the player, pretty clearly isn't.