![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm nursing a headache (and apparently, I really am nursing it because I seem to be doing everything possible to help it along), so I'm going to take a moment to say, apropos of nothing, that I can't stand people who go on a tear about people quoting and referencing Monty Python as catch phrases.
The rationale they give is that the Monty Python philosophy was to eschew the tired old formula of catchphrase based humor and give the people something shocking and new and original. Which they did, in spades... Monty Python at the time was extremely shocking, extremely new, and extremely original.
You know what, though?
Seriously, do you know what?
Monty Python was also extremely funny.
That's right. It wasn't just new. It wasn't just shocking. It was clever and it was funny. If it hadn't been clever and funny, it wouldn't have worked so well. It would have been a bunch of avant-garde shit that nobody would have watched except for the very few people in the world who think "shocking newness" is the same thing as quality.
When people quote Monty Python, it's no longer shocking. It's no longer new. It's no longer original.
It's still funny. Decades on, it is still hilarious. People who see old clips for the first time, people who have them memorized... still laughing. It still works.
Saying that it's not funny... suggesting that it only worked in the first place because of its newness... is insulting to the comedic talents of the men of Python.
What's more? I think no more than twice in the history of wanking about people quoting Python has anybody come up with the idea that it's a comedic travesty to do so on their own. Everybody else? They're just copying a rant they heard somewhere because they figure it makes them look more clever than the people who are copying Monty Python.
Guess what?
You aren't. You're just an unoriginal hack, and you don't even have the extenuating circumstance of being funny.
And that, in the words of British philosopher Bertrand Russell, is all I have to say about that.
The rationale they give is that the Monty Python philosophy was to eschew the tired old formula of catchphrase based humor and give the people something shocking and new and original. Which they did, in spades... Monty Python at the time was extremely shocking, extremely new, and extremely original.
You know what, though?
Seriously, do you know what?
Monty Python was also extremely funny.
That's right. It wasn't just new. It wasn't just shocking. It was clever and it was funny. If it hadn't been clever and funny, it wouldn't have worked so well. It would have been a bunch of avant-garde shit that nobody would have watched except for the very few people in the world who think "shocking newness" is the same thing as quality.
When people quote Monty Python, it's no longer shocking. It's no longer new. It's no longer original.
It's still funny. Decades on, it is still hilarious. People who see old clips for the first time, people who have them memorized... still laughing. It still works.
Saying that it's not funny... suggesting that it only worked in the first place because of its newness... is insulting to the comedic talents of the men of Python.
What's more? I think no more than twice in the history of wanking about people quoting Python has anybody come up with the idea that it's a comedic travesty to do so on their own. Everybody else? They're just copying a rant they heard somewhere because they figure it makes them look more clever than the people who are copying Monty Python.
Guess what?
You aren't. You're just an unoriginal hack, and you don't even have the extenuating circumstance of being funny.
And that, in the words of British philosopher Bertrand Russell, is all I have to say about that.
