Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

 

Because wit isn't inflicted, it's received.  Lower class wit, just because no one recorded it, didn't suddenly cease to exist.  It had nothing to do with proper speech, even in England (especially because the nobles and countrymen weren't even speaking the same language).  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.  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.  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.  And when it doesn't, and someone keeps pushing it, of course people are going to call it trolling.  They'll OOCly tell this guy to stop, that they're trying to RP, that interrupting them to troll them isn't funny.  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.  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.  He just doesn't understand the effect as it's received.  If people thought he was intelligent, but unlikable, they're likely to RP with him figuring he's being played straight up.  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.  Can you, essentially, meta in subjective conversational perception.  I'd say no, not in an open social context.  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 Poetics is lacking, to be clear, so I don't doubt that the Greeks introduced the idea of wit into Western thought; however, how we 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.

Link to comment
  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

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. 

 

This Nicholas just then let fly a fart

As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,

 And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;

But he was ready with his iron hot

And Nicholas right in the arse he got.

     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-ancient-graffiti/

 

“The one who buggers a fire burns his penis.”

 

 

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

 

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.

Link to comment

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.

 

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. 

 

This Nicholas just then let fly a fart

As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,

 And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;

But he was ready with his iron hot

And Nicholas right in the arse he got.

     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-ancient-graffiti/

 

“The one who buggers a fire burns his penis.”

 

 

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

 

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.  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.  In fact, poets were not always, contrary to popular opinion, gentry.  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.  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.  He lived poor for a healthy chunk of his life.  Today, he's pretty highly regarded as having been a brilliant writer, probably one of the first well-known satirists.  He was also pretty well regarded as being quick-witted and intellectual.  Which isn't bad for someone who grew up in such a state in England.

 

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

Link to comment

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.

 

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. 

 

This Nicholas just then let fly a fart

As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,

 And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;

But he was ready with his iron hot

And Nicholas right in the arse he got.

     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-ancient-graffiti/

 

“The one who buggers a fire burns his penis.”

 

 

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

 

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.  Robert Herrick wrote some of the earliest English tentacle porn in history, a poem called "The Vine".  He's only just now being received as a well-written man.

Link to comment

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?

 

No, populist scum, now go back and keep reading.

Link to comment

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?

I think we've mostly agreed to:

 

'Yes, because wit is a social construct like beauty or politeness. So while you can never make a character that is witty to all people, even those of us (such as myself) with lower intelligence, can at least make a character that conforms to their own sense of wit. Which others may accept or reject at their leisure."

 

But I could be wrong, not very witty myself, you see.

 

Now we're just arguing semantics, which is entertaining and of itself to those who have too much time and like to argue.

Link to comment

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?

 

We're talking about dick jokes in antiquity.  We really don't need you complaining about length.

Link to comment

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?

 

We're talking about dick jokes in antiquity.  We really don't need you complaining about length.

 

Sorry, didn't realize you get length complaints outside of the game too heyooooooooooo

Link to comment

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?

 

We're talking about dick jokes in antiquity.  We really don't need you complaining about length.

 

Sorry, didn't realize you get length complaints outside of the game too heyooooooooooo

 

No, but you're honestly not the first person that have asked me to hurry up and finish.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

This is a sensible perspective, wit is technically influenced and defined by culture. I must ask, however, would this not imply that no matter how incompetent or idiotic you are, someone out there thinks of you as intelligent? If you think of it, nearly every personality/mental trait can be malleable enough to be bent by the audience's perspective.

 

But how seriously can one take a player who claims their character is a genius and then goes around saying, like the example I have given before, "cats are reptiles"? Would they not be shunned by the community based on the fact people see an IC/OOC dissonance? How is that something better or fair for the roleplayer?

Link to comment

 

 

But how seriously can one take a player who claims their character is a genius and then goes around saying, like the example I have given before, "cats are reptiles"? Would they not be shunned by the community based on the fact people see an IC/OOC dissonance? How is that something better or fair for the roleplayer?

 

Do you know why, OOC, the character is saying "cats are reptiles"?

 

Because if you don't, then you don't know what the character's motivation is.  Which is okay, because we're really not supposed to know that OOC.

 

Which means your character can react however they want.  But, quite frankly, I couldn't give a fig whether you, the player, take another player seriously.  I'm not even sure why that would even be a question.  They're there to RP.  If your character finds what their character is saying to be complete hogwash, then your character should react accordingly.  That should literally be the end of it.

Link to comment

I think Liadan summed this up pretty well.  If you don't know the OOC motivations behind the character telling you this, then your character should react accordingly. 

 

If someone tries to provide your character with information they don't know isn't true, react accordingly in that fashion. 

 

If they say something that your character knows to be false, react accordingly in that fashion. 

 

If you decide you don't like that character portrayal, explain politely to the player that you're not interested in engaging with them again, and call it a day. 

 

Your only 'duty' when dealing with someone is to react the way your character would.  And if you don't like interacting with that person, rather than just 'shutting them out', something that seems to be an immediate reaction in the RPC, tell them (politely and privately) why you don't find the encounter engaging, and let them know you don't want to RP again. 

 

It could strike up a conversation that reveals a deeper insight into that character.  Maybe their character is a con-man who is trying to pass off fake knowledge as being truth.  Maybe that character is a madman who actually believes that cats are reptiles. 

 

You don't know, and making an immediate assumption cuts them off at the knees when it honestly isn't necessary, and actually tends to make the "better" RPers very cliquish against anyone perceived to not be up to their standards when playing.  And that is no way to foster or bolster the community.

 

I'm probably going to call it quits at this, however, as it seems like the topic keeps going in circles. Hopefully you don't deal with any theoretical assholes who try and shove a character concept down your throat - I've never actually seen this type of character represented anywhere by anyone who is part of the RPC, or even the community at large.

Link to comment

This topic is very subjective and semantic.  I'll boil it down to a few points -- you can and should:

 

  • play any type of character that makes you happy;
  • attempt to play that character in a way that is consistent with the character;
  • gauge IC reactions towards other characters based on the character's IC representations;
  • do your best to humor and entertain people who cannot fully convey a critical aspect of their character that should otherwise be apparent; and
  • respect and enjoy RP with others. 

/thread.

Link to comment

I would probably answer that question in the same fashion that Chris Rock responded to an interviewer's assertion that Dane Cook was "not funny."

 

CR: "If you can make your audience laugh, you're funny. Simple as that."

 

 

I really don't think you can make generalizations about something like wit, because the answer is almost solely determined by the individual.

Link to comment

I try to avoid rping most things that I don't have at least a general knowledge about to start with (so I know what to google to keep bookmarked/in document files for later if needed) and can bullshit easily enough, or try to avoid it. I'm one of those people who tend to have a general knowledge about a lot of things, and I tend to info binge A LOT, but I also tend to forget a lot of things I researched so then I need to re-research the details for the thing that I remember reading about that one time for things that is being talked about now. So I know I know the things, or know OF things, but I forgot details because I havn't been using the information so it's just kind of filed away somewhere in my brain. It's there..... somewhere (I do the same thing with paper files and word/notepad files too. I know I got the info! Just where I'm not sure :Ia Now if only I could do a key word search in my brain like you can a computer)

 

Though I admit too that a lot of stuff that I'd be "hurrdurr?" about irl or be slow to come up with something witty, I do manage to pull off well enough when messing around on certain characters and then I'm like "Dude what? Where that come from? Why don't I do that normally? I would be awesome"

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...