RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 03:41 PM**

(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. Â I figured it was sarcastic because it hasn't been that way for a long time. Â With universal education comes the concept that wit is actually the province of the intelligent. Â We just weren't teaching all the intelligent to read or write, so we have no record of the zingers told between the cobbler and the ferryman.

However, these days, wit is perceived as a trait of raw intellect, not education. Â Knowing a statistic that might derail someone's argument is effective, but not necessarily witty. Â Being able to logically deconstruct someone's argument in real time without the statistic certainly is. Â Wit is just a measure of mental reaction time, sort of the time it takes to process a response.

That makes it VERY obvious in conversation, even in RP-lapse, who thinks of a good response in a few minutes, who needs a few hours, and who needs a few days. Â And none of these three people are more effective, more knowledgeable, or even more right. Â Wit, and by extension intelligence, are measures of speed. Â They're not easily faked unless you can insert a good response six posts down the line, and that's only if you can come up with the response while it's relevant.

That's not as easy as you might think it is. Â Hence the line I drawled about time. Â Maybe if I gave people a few days to think up the best response possible, they could mimic it better, but giving people a few extra minutes before typing generally doesn't turn someone who isn't very good at turning phrases into a rhetorical machine. Â It's not as easy as you might think it is. Â Some people really have a hard time with it.

Telluride · **08-21-2015, 03:41 PM**

(08-21-2015, 03:37 PM)Verad Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 03:36 PM)Telluride Wrote: If brevity is the soul of wit, then perhaps we've already seen this thread at our wit's end.

Bonus thought: shouldn't the original quote have been, "Brevity is wit's soul?"

It would have been a lie from an idiot who died behind a tapestry in either case.

Your point, as was the one that killed him, is quite solid.

Oli! · **08-21-2015, 03:51 PM**

(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 mostlyÂ 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.

Verad · **08-21-2015, 03:56 PM**

(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 mostlyÂ 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.

Oli! · **08-21-2015, 04:01 PM**

(08-21-2015, 03:56 PM)Verad Wrote: 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.

This is fair, and also the stance that I've held from the beginning (meaning the post I made when I jumped in here, like a page or two ago). I still maintain that the simplest answer to the thread's stated question is that if you have the capability to be "witty," however that is defined on an individual level, then yes, your character can be witty. The inverse is also true; if you are unable to be whatever you consider to be "witty," then your character cannot be, because you cannot emulate something that is foreign to you.

The idea of what is witty and what is not is something entirely subjective and inarguable because it is not a definite truth. As a result, I would actually go so far to say that that argument is a complete distraction from the thread's question.

My first post, for the sake of completeness, I guess:

Show Content

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 04:02 PM**

(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 mostlyÂ 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.

Verad · **08-21-2015, 04:06 PM**

(08-21-2015, 03:41 PM)Ignacius Wrote: 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. Â I figured it was sarcastic because it hasn't been that way for a long time. Â With universal education comes the concept that wit is actually the province of the intelligent. Â We just weren't teaching all the intelligent to read or write, so we have no record of the zingers told between the cobbler and the ferryman.

However, these days, wit is perceived as a trait of raw intellect, not education. Â Knowing a statistic that might derail someone's argument is effective, but not necessarily witty. Â Being able to logically deconstruct someone's argument in real time without the statistic certainly is. Â Wit is just a measure of mental reaction time, sort of the time it takes to process a response.

That makes it VERY obvious in conversation, even in RP-lapse, who thinks of a good response in a few minutes, who needs a few hours, and who needs a few days. Â And none of these three people are more effective, more knowledgeable, or even more right. Â Wit, and by extension intelligence, are measures of speed. Â They're not easily faked unless you can insert a good response six posts down the line, and that's only if you can come up with the response while it's relevant.

That's not as easy as you might think it is. Â Hence the line I drawled about time. Â Maybe if I gave people a few days to think up the best response possible, they could mimic it better, but giving people a few extra minutes before typing generally doesn't turn someone who isn't very good at turning phrases into a rhetorical machine. Â It's not as easy as you might think it is. Â Some people really have a hard time with it.

We have no lower-class zingers because people choseÂ not to record them as much as they couldn'tÂ be recorded. Their speech was low, and to be corrected, because it lacked the linguistic markers of upper-class wit. They might have referred to vulgarity directly, rather than obliquely; their wordplay might have lacked the appropriate grammatical structures to be worth recording (a serious concern in 19th century Britain in particular, where correct speech is seen as a marker of moral character) or it might have been accidental. What value, then, was there in recording them?

Now this is admittedly much more true for Britain than for the United States, where it's possible to have a "folksy" wit and the lower-classes, or the rural ones anyway, are seen as respectable in their own right. But a lot of our markers for witty speech come both from the educational opportunities for the upper classes and how they policed what speech was considered intelligent. That we perceive wit as a sign of raw intelligence rather than education is a holdover from that period.

Knowing that the notion of wit in the modern day is an accident of history and culture, why are we telling people they can't be witty instead of questioning our own perceptions of wit?

Verad · **08-21-2015, 04:08 PM**

(08-21-2015, 04:02 PM)Ignacius Wrote: 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.

I question the assumption, knowing that wit is culturally determined, that it is possible for somebody to be universally regarded as lacking in wit.

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 04:18 PM**

(08-21-2015, 04:06 PM)Verad Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 03:41 PM)Ignacius Wrote: 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. Â I figured it was sarcastic because it hasn't been that way for a long time. Â With universal education comes the concept that wit is actually the province of the intelligent. Â We just weren't teaching all the intelligent to read or write, so we have no record of the zingers told between the cobbler and the ferryman.

However, these days, wit is perceived as a trait of raw intellect, not education. Â Knowing a statistic that might derail someone's argument is effective, but not necessarily witty. Â Being able to logically deconstruct someone's argument in real time without the statistic certainly is. Â Wit is just a measure of mental reaction time, sort of the time it takes to process a response.

That makes it VERY obvious in conversation, even in RP-lapse, who thinks of a good response in a few minutes, who needs a few hours, and who needs a few days. Â And none of these three people are more effective, more knowledgeable, or even more right. Â Wit, and by extension intelligence, are measures of speed. Â They're not easily faked unless you can insert a good response six posts down the line, and that's only if you can come up with the response while it's relevant.

That's not as easy as you might think it is. Â Hence the line I drawled about time. Â Maybe if I gave people a few days to think up the best response possible, they could mimic it better, but giving people a few extra minutes before typing generally doesn't turn someone who isn't very good at turning phrases into a rhetorical machine. Â It's not as easy as you might think it is. Â Some people really have a hard time with it.

We have no lower-class zingers because people choseÂ not to record them as much as they couldn'tÂ be recorded. Their speech was low, and to be corrected, because it lacked the linguistic markers of upper-class wit. They might have referred to vulgarity directly, rather than obliquely; their wordplay might have lacked the appropriate grammatical structures to be worth recording (a serious concern in 19th century Britain in particular, where correct speech is seen as a marker of moral character) or it might have been accidental. What value, then, was there in recording them?

Now this is admittedly much more true for Britain than for the United States, where it's possible to have a "folksy" wit and the lower-classes, or the rural ones anyway, are seen as respectable in their own right. But a lot of our markers for witty speech come both from the educational opportunities for the upper classes and how they policed what speech was considered intelligent. That we perceive wit as a sign of raw intelligence rather than education is a holdover from that period.

Knowing that the notion of wit in the modern day is an accident of history and culture, why are we telling people they can't be witty instead of questioning our own perceptions of wit?

Because wit isn't inflicted, it's received. Â Lower class wit, just because no one recorded it, didn't suddenly cease to exist. Â It had nothing to do with proper speech, even in England (especially because the nobles and countrymen weren't even speaking the same language). Â If my friend turns to me and says something witty about a local building commission, his wit didn't just vanish or never exist, his wit just wasn't recorded for everyone to hear.

So it's existed since the dawn of complex conversation. Â It was certainly already happening, pretty much in the form we receive it as today, in ancient Greece (which is where we got the tradition).

And when you say you want your character to be witty, as per the OP, you're writing towards that standard. Â And when you fail, it isn't a matter of just broadening our horizons to make "lol u dum" a superlative repartee considering the writers' perceived education, either it resonates or it doesn't. Â And when it doesn't, and someone keeps pushing it, of course people are going to call it trolling. Â They'll OOCly tell this guy to stop, that they're trying to RP, that interrupting them to troll them isn't funny. Â And they won't care whether that player is trying as hard as he can or actually is trolling them because they can't judge the writer, just the effect.

However, as you can see, that effect clearly depends largely on the writer's ability. Â If he thinks he knocked it out of the park and everyone else found him boorish, he's not witty any more than I'm six feet tall. Â He just doesn't understand the effect as it's received. Â If people thought he was intelligent, but unlikable, they're likely to RP with him figuring he's being played straight up. Â If he doesn't sound intelligent but wants to, he's not meeting his goal.

And, again, the issue is whether we should say he's witty as long as he's intending it to be read that way. Â Can you, essentially, meta in subjective conversational perception. Â I'd say no, not in an open social context. Â You can only shoot for the top and understand if you can't make the bar you set that it isn't the audience's fault.

McBeefâ„¢ · **08-21-2015, 04:22 PM**

Bit of a tangent, but to respond above, we do actually have records of 'lower class' wit, and they've been recorded through the ages.
Â
For example the Miller's tale by Chaucer is about as low-brow as it gets. A guy kisses someone's butt, gets farted on, and then sticks a iron poker up it.Â

Quote:This Nicholas just then let fly a fart
As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,
Â And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;
But he was ready with his iron hot
And Nicholas right in the arse he got.
Â Â Â Off went the skin a hand's-breadth broad, about,
The coulter burned his bottom so, throughout,
That for the pain he thought that he should die.
And like one mad he started in to cry,
"Help! Water! Water! For God's dear heart!"

The Graffiti of Pompeii also has good examples:

http://classicalwisdom.com/dirty-world-a...-graffiti/

â€œThe one who buggers a fire burns his penis.â€

Or the poetic dissing of the Romans, this one starts off with 'I will sodomize and face fuck you'Â

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16

No doubt someone got a kick out of it, or it wouldn't have been written down.

Verad · **08-21-2015, 04:28 PM**

(08-21-2015, 04:18 PM)Ignacius Wrote: Because wit isn't inflicted, it's received. Â Lower class wit, just because no one recorded it, didn't suddenly cease to exist. Â It had nothing to do with proper speech, even in England (especially because the nobles and countrymen weren't even speaking the same language). Â If my friend turns to me and says something witty about a local building commission, his wit didn't just vanish or never exist, his wit just wasn't recorded for everyone to hear.

So it's existed since the dawn of complex conversation. Â It was certainly already happening, pretty much in the form we receive it as today, in ancient Greece (which is where we got the tradition).

And when you say you want your character to be witty, as per the OP, you're writing towards that standard. Â And when you fail, it isn't a matter of just broadening our horizons to make "lol u dum" a superlative repartee considering the writers' perceived education, either it resonates or it doesn't. Â And when it doesn't, and someone keeps pushing it, of course people are going to call it trolling. Â They'll OOCly tell this guy to stop, that they're trying to RP, that interrupting them to troll them isn't funny. Â And they won't care whether that player is trying as hard as he can or actually is trolling them because they can't judge the writer, just the effect.

However, as you can see, that effect clearly depends largely on the writer's ability. Â If he thinks he knocked it out of the park and everyone else found him boorish, he's not witty any more than I'm six feet tall. Â He just doesn't understand the effect as it's received. Â If people thought he was intelligent, but unlikable, they're likely to RP with him figuring he's being played straight up. Â If he doesn't sound intelligent but wants to, he's not meeting his goal.

And, again, the issue is whether we should say he's witty as long as he's intending it to be read that way. Â Can you, essentially, meta in subjective conversational perception. Â I'd say no, not in an open social context. Â You can only shoot for the top and understand if you can't make the bar you set that it isn't the audience's fault.

And how you receive that wit - how you determine whether that response is witty or not - is going to be based on linguistic markers that are culturally determined, and, in this case, were determined by historical issues of class, education and speech. These issues are also much more historically recent than what you're describing - the connection between wit as in wittiness and the intellect is an Enlightenment-era conceit. "Wit" as a term doesn't even enter the lexicon as a specific marker of cleverness until the late 13th century.

What the lower-classes said may well have been thought of as funny, but as we've already established, funny and witty aren't necessarily the same thing.

My grasp of the PoeticsÂ is lacking, to be clear, so I don't doubt that the Greeks introduced the idea of wit into Western thought; however, how weÂ perceive wit is a product of modernity, not of Classical thought.

And yes, it really is a matter of broadening horizons. If it connects or it doesn't, ask yourself why it does doesn't. It's certainly not because the writer is necessarily stupid, or smart, or has failed/managed to connect to some essential quality of a social marker that's existed since time immemorial.

Verad · **08-21-2015, 04:32 PM**

(08-21-2015, 04:22 PM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Bit of a tangent, but to respond above, we do actually have records of 'lower class' wit, and they've been recorded through the ages.
Â
For example the Miller's tale by Chaucer is about as low-brow as it gets. A guy kisses someone's butt, gets farted on, and then sticks a iron poker up it.Â

Quote:This Nicholas just then let fly a fart
As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,
Â And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;
But he was ready with his iron hot
And Nicholas right in the arse he got.
Â Â Â Off went the skin a hand's-breadth broad, about,
The coulter burned his bottom so, throughout,
That for the pain he thought that he should die.
And like one mad he started in to cry,
"Help! Water! Water! For God's dear heart!"

The Graffiti of Pompeii also has good examples:

http://classicalwisdom.com/dirty-world-a...-graffiti/

â€œThe one who buggers a fire burns his penis.â€

Or the poetic dissing of the Romans, this one starts off with 'I will sodomize and face fuck you'Â

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16

No doubt someone got a kick out of it, or it wouldn't have been written down.

This is actually one of the great ironies of how we perceive wit - the prevalence of this material in the work of people considered wits. Lord Rochester was specifically called a court wit, and his poetry is full of dick jokes and impotency. Swift is one of the great satirists, with such memorably cutting moments as Gulliver pissing on a palace to put out a fire, engaging in what we would consider revenge porn against his intellectual opponents, and, of course, the whole incident with the baby-eating.

One sees a shift in 19th-century Britain in which this material can be referred to only obliquely, and we are still grappling with that shift today.

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 04:35 PM**

(08-21-2015, 04:22 PM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Bit of a tangent, but to respond above, we do actually have records of 'lower class' wit, and they've been recorded through the ages.
Â
For example the Miller's tale by Chaucer is about as low-brow as it gets. A guy kisses someone's butt, gets farted on, and then sticks a iron poker up it.Â

Quote:This Nicholas just then let fly a fart
As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,
Â And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;
But he was ready with his iron hot
And Nicholas right in the arse he got.
Â Â Â Off went the skin a hand's-breadth broad, about,
The coulter burned his bottom so, throughout,
That for the pain he thought that he should die.
And like one mad he started in to cry,
"Help! Water! Water! For God's dear heart!"

The Graffiti of Pompeii also has good examples:

http://classicalwisdom.com/dirty-world-a...-graffiti/

â€œThe one who buggers a fire burns his penis.â€

Or the poetic dissing of the Romans, this one starts off with 'I will sodomize and face fuck you'Â

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16

No doubt someone got a kick out of it, or it wouldn't have been written down.

It's around. Â I think Verad's point was that "wit" was sort of an upper-class distinction made from their literacy, and that their version of "Tiggy likes it in the butt" probably wasn't wit in that time.

There was lower class wit. Â In fact, poets were not always, contrary to popular opinion, gentry. Â Shakespeare actually did write during a time when being a middle-class or even lower-class poet was worthwhile, and they actually could be called witty.

John Donne, for example, is probably one of England's most famous poets. Â He was born a Catholic in 1572 (not the best time to be a Catholic in England), to a family of Welsh ironmongers living in London. Â He lived poor for a healthy chunk of his life. Â Today, he's pretty highly regarded as having been a brilliant writer, probably one of the first well-known satirists. Â He was also pretty well regarded as being quick-witted and intellectual. Â Which isn't bad for someone who grew up in such a state in England.

Still, he at least got famous. Â There are probably people of varying levels of wit all around you, but few people are likely to be publicly recorded that way.

Ignacius · **08-21-2015, 04:36 PM**

(08-21-2015, 04:32 PM)Verad Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 04:22 PM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: Bit of a tangent, but to respond above, we do actually have records of 'lower class' wit, and they've been recorded through the ages.
Â
For example the Miller's tale by Chaucer is about as low-brow as it gets. A guy kisses someone's butt, gets farted on, and then sticks a iron poker up it.Â

Quote:This Nicholas just then let fly a fart
As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,
Â And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;
But he was ready with his iron hot
And Nicholas right in the arse he got.
Â Â Â Off went the skin a hand's-breadth broad, about,
The coulter burned his bottom so, throughout,
That for the pain he thought that he should die.
And like one mad he started in to cry,
"Help! Water! Water! For God's dear heart!"

The Graffiti of Pompeii also has good examples:

http://classicalwisdom.com/dirty-world-a...-graffiti/

â€œThe one who buggers a fire burns his penis.â€

Or the poetic dissing of the Romans, this one starts off with 'I will sodomize and face fuck you'Â

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16

No doubt someone got a kick out of it, or it wouldn't have been written down.

This is actually one of the great ironies of how we perceive wit - the prevalence of this material in the work of people considered wits. Lord Rochester was specifically called a court wit, and his poetry is full of dick jokes and impotency. Swift is one of the great satirists, with such memorably cutting moments as Gulliver pissing on a palace to put out a fire, engaging in what we would consider revenge porn against his intellectual opponents, and, of course, the whole incident with the baby-eating.

One sees a shift in 19th-century Britain in which this material can be referred to only obliquely, and we are still grappling with that shift today.

Hey, that's nothing. Â Robert Herrick wrote some of the earliest English tentacle porn in history, a poem called "The Vine". Â He's only just now being received as a well-written man.

Warren Castille · **08-21-2015, 04:37 PM**

I stopped reading when the thread became a series of SAT questions and skipped to the end. Have we decided that the answer is "Yes, but with some obvious challenges" yet?

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (13): « Previous 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Next » Jump to page:

"Witty" characters, can they be roleplayed by the dumb?

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes