User talk:MasonicLamb

Absurdism
Hello, MasonicLamb; I see that no one's welcomed you to Wikipedia yet, so let me be the first. :) Anyway, I noticed your contributions to Absurdism (and Talk:Absurdism, and, while I can't quite wrap my head around the absurdist philosophy entirely as you detailed it, I do appreciate your thorough explanation. Since you seem to be well-versed in this field, if you wouldn't mind, I would be interested in your specific take on one example that you did remove, an example whose content I know well: Red vs Blue. As a warning, this query will be rather long, so please bear with me.

Part of the reason why I am singling this out is that I helped to promote the Red vs Blue article to featured status on Wikipedia, and, as such, I'd like to ensure that the article remains as accurate as possible, and, currently, the article describes the series as an "absurdist parody". The "absurdist" adjective is based on a quote by Graham Leggat, then director of communication for Lincoln Center's film society. In the quote, which was originally reprinted in the Los Angeles Times, he called the series "really good absurdist sketch comedy". He's also compared the series to Samuel Beckett (the quote and link for that one is in the main Red vs Blue article).

I apologize if I seem dense, but, as far as my understanding goes, I do know that there is a big difference between merely "absurd" comedic situations and absurdism. Incidentally, Red vs Blue does employ non-sequiturs liberally, but I wonder whether the overarching thrust of the series does actually contain elements of absurdism. The opening premise involves two teams supposedly fighting each other in a pointless canyon, with no rationale for being there except that the other team was there. Attempts to make sense of the situation or to obtain more specific orders from their respective Commands fail, and the teams end up spending much of their time bickering among themselves. Among other things, one character, in trying to "solve" a situation, becomes stuck in a causality loop, only breaking free when he accepts that "no matter how bad [things] seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things... are, and you better get used to it."

So, my question to you is whether this repeated theme of pointlessness and the futile attempts to find a coherent meaning behind the situation is sufficient to call this legitimately "absurdist", in your judgment? I realize that I've only given you a brief synopsis; if you want more information, please let me know. Mind you, my primary goal in this discussion is not to push for the relisting of Red vs Blue on absurdism; I'm primarily looking for some extra backing for the "absurdist" adjective present in the Red vs Blue article itself (especially as there's an outstanding request to have the article featured on the main page).

Thanks for your time. — TKD::Talk 03:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. It makes a little more sense now. One would think that a director of a major film society would be a reliable source, but, having read what you wrote, I'm beginning to think that the layperson's definition of absurdism leaves out the non-fatalistic component of the philosophy (at least according to a couple of dictionaries that I've consulted). One last possible connection point for RvB is that at least of one the main characters in fact serious about carrying on the pointless "war".


 * I think the thing is that ther tenor of the series changes from episode to episode; some episodes are almost completely non-sequitur surreal humor, while others attempt to become philosophical. Unfortunately, I don't have a reliable source that contradicts the absurdist point. Unfortunately, the comparisons to Beckett are probably widespread enough to keep a mention. I'll think about it for a bit, as I have some other edits to the article that I want to make soon, but I'm thinking the absurdist epithet could possibly be dropped in favor of other well-sourced descriptions and comparisons, especially if the "common" notion of absurdism, even in otherwise well-informed people, is incorrect.


 * By the way, the [Catch-22 comparison did cross my mind; the main differences as far as themes go are that the "point" in RvB is more ambiguous, and there is no clear protagonist in Red vs Blue.


 * Thanks again for your help. — TKD::Talk 06:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)