And I refuse to believe that bullshit wasn't satire.

I come here because I enjoy the introspective nature of the craft- yadda yadda all that bullshit- that goes into making a good story, but there are countless times I stumble into thread titles that look like they're written by delusional and mentally unstable people who's only solace and human interaction comes from the fictional characters they write.

Some examples of this include the egoists (egotists?) who ask if it's "okay to write about X doing Y and Z" as if there are writing laws and fiction police. In essence these guys are attention seekers wanting praise for their story concept. These people often never have the will to actually write a story into their sometimes cool (but often boring and contrived) premise, neither do they intend to actually write, but they want the recognition of having a half decent idea (or what seems like it to themselves).

Then there are empathisers who post on a monthly basis about how terrible and emotional it was for them to kill a character in their story, or how one of the characters "acted in a way they didn't expect them to" (roll eyes emoji). This I think stems from that time J.K. Rowling said she cried about Sirius Black dying, and then every YA fiction author suddenly felt they had to publicly admit this to be taken as a serious character writer.

And lastly you have the people who are the subject of this topic. The know-it-all, english lit graduate, daily commercial coffee shop patron, unemployed, unpublished "writers"- who feel they can give writing advice to others in an authoritative tone, and have the nerve to go as far to call this advice a "rule" or other such best practise.

Read:  Detective/CSI writers, are Crime Scene Investigators allowed to pursue suspects? Or is that meant for another department?

I won't bother telling you the play-by-play, instead here's a link to this impeccable farce:

https://old.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/ae6upp/let_me_tell_you_all_about_the_donald_duck_rule/

What makes this hilarious:

1) The rule make absolutely no fucking sense. it's the fucking stupidest shit I've ever read.

2) The "proofs" of his rule act as unproofs.

3) People are unironically thanking the topic creator for his advice. (Sign of successful satire is tricking the people you are making a mockery of into agreeing with you)

4) The topic is heavily upvoted (I want to believe people recognised it had huge comedy potential and began upvoting it, though I wouldn't hold my breath on that)

5) The opening post is written so straight and unaware of the unrealistic and terrible content of the post, that I can only imagine the writer is a Harold Ramis level of comedic genius.

6) He made the topic and doesn't respond or elaborate on what he has said, neither does he delete the topic (and I love him for this). People try to "explain" to the ones that "don't get it" (there was nothing to get, OP played a joke on the entire subreddit).

If this wasn't satire then I suppose this would go down in reddit lore as another "professional quote maker" as seen on r/atheism many years ago. In fact, in my own fan fiction of reality I like to believe the professional quote maker and this guy are one and the same.

Does this sound plausible, or have I just fucking lost it?

Source: reddit post


LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here