Shenanigans, Fiction, and blow jobs? (SFW?) (873 hits)
Category: Computers & InternetRating: 1.33 on 13 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Parkinsuns (View user info) at 2005-02-26 06:18:37 EST
I've noticed very often when someone submits a post about something that supposedly happened to them, its uber-tradition to "call shenanigans" on the writer. I'm confused on this.
I've found that I feel most comfortable writing in the first person. More than that, none of my stories have actually happened to me. It's also easier to fit a story into an uber-friendly length if the narrator is presumed to be the author (see http://www.ubersite.com/m/60381 ). Now, no one seems to give a fuck about how I write, as no one has done this to me as of yet. But the whole deal got me thinking. What makes shenanigans...well....shenanigans?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Shenanigans told me:
A deceitful trick; an underhanded act.
Remarks intended to deceive; deceit. Often used in the plural.
What about fiction written in the first person? Google of the same gave me a short list of books in the Cincinnati library.
http://www.cincinnatilibrary.org/spotlight/sp200105/fiction.asp
Yep. It's real. Authors can write in the first person without publishers answering without "-2 I CALL SHENANIGANS!!!!". So, why not on uber?
So, I leave it up to some review. What's the difference between the two? If someone tells an interesting story of questionable reality, is that really a "deceitful trick; an underhanded act"? This is, of course, if the author doesn't claim said events to be their own and actual.
I'm sure this picture as appeared before, but it's my first time seeing it, so you're going to see it again.
User Reviews
Submitted by Parkinsuns (user info) at 2005-02-26 20:57:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2005-02-26 10:34:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me elaborate.
There is a difference between writing fiction in the first person as opposed to a supposed true account for the sake of pointing out how cool you are.
I typically call Shenanigans on the latter when the story defies common sense or is just plain unbelievable.
No one is cool. That's my golden rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yay.
Submitted by Val (user info) at 2005-02-26 11:10:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Shenanigans as of late have been called mostly on shitty alters who try and get everyone all riled up. Or maybe a camwhore of a hot girl when you know damn well everyone on uber closely resembles a piece of pizza. I haven't seen ACTUAL LITERARY shenanigans in a long time... but that could just be because I'm hardly on here anymore.
I think I answered your question. Probably not, because I'm totally distracted by roses
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2005-02-26 10:34:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me elaborate.
There is a difference between writing fiction in the first person as opposed to a supposed true account for the sake of pointing out how cool you are.
I typically call Shenanigans on the latter when the story defies common sense or is just plain unbelievable.
No one is cool. That's my golden rule.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2005-02-26 10:28:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Spend enough time here and you begin to see through some of the bullshit.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2005-02-26 08:19:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Meh, Calling shenanigans on someone doesn't mean -2'ing. If you really want to stop people from saying 'shenanigans', mention that it's fiction somewhere in the post.
Submitted by Parkinsuns (user info) at 2005-02-26 08:16:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by creep_firebombing (user info) at 2005-02-26 07:22:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
bout time someone called everyone on this bullshit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK! GOOD!
Alas, I am still without an answer.
Submitted by creep_firebombing (user info) at 2005-02-26 07:22:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
bout time someone called everyone on this bullshit
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-02-26 07:20:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Shenanigans!!
Submitted by jojojojojojo (user info) at 2005-02-26 06:58:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well... I guess it's sort of nit-picking but English really loves its determiners esp. those indefinite articles like 'a'. And like, dude, I really think google is like 'eat' you (hopefully) wouldn't say ". Eat of --- resulted in some very bad gas." Course, I'm not really serious an my grammar real badbad too anyways.
Submitted by Parkinsuns (user info) at 2005-02-26 06:47:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jojojojojojo (user info) at 2005-02-26 06:32:36 (#)
Ranking: -2
-1 for the double 'without's, -1 for the 'google of the same' silliness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I noticed the double "without". But "Google of the same" makes sense!
"What about fiction written in the first person? Google of the same gave me a short list of books in the Cincinnati library."
The subject of the previous sentence was fiction, or more specially fiction written in the first person. Google of the same means I looked up "fiction in the first person". http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=fiction+in+the+first+person
Or maybe it's all just, shenanigans?
Submitted by jojojojojojo (user info) at 2005-02-26 06:32:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
-1 for the double 'without's, -1 for the 'google of the same' silliness.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-26 06:28:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by ParlorTrick (user info) at 2004-10-11 14:21:08 (#)
Ranking: -2
Programming complete.
Operative is clueless.
Submitted by Parkinsuns (user info) at 2005-02-26 06:20:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for myself for the double "without"'s.
(yes I know the authors rating doesn't count, so someone should do it for me)