Art irritates life into imitating a Monty Python sketch of some sort

by John Holbo on February 22, 2006

A local vicar wrote in today’s Plymouth Herald that the second half of the show, which is set in hell, made him feel like he was “in hell” …

(link via Neil Gaiman)



John Holbo 02.22.06 at 7:26 pm

no comments? not a one? (sniff)


dejla 02.22.06 at 8:38 pm

Well, it would seem then that it did the job, didn’t it?


Ian 02.22.06 at 8:38 pm

I don’t think anyone really wants to pile into the Plymouth Herald, John. Now if it had been Jyllands-Posten, say…


Simstim 02.22.06 at 8:48 pm

I’ve already commented on it elsewhere.


John Holbo 02.22.06 at 9:05 pm

Don’t want to pile into the Plymouth Herald? If not now, when? Simstim, comment box not good enough for you, eh?


Simstim 02.22.06 at 9:10 pm

I only comment in comment boxes about other comments, like yours for instance.


yabonn 02.23.06 at 6:00 am

Did the vicar mention that he was offended ? ((c) Bertram Ltd)


abb1 02.23.06 at 12:12 pm

Was the vicar a part of the show? Like in this Woody Allen’s play:

WRITER: Who are you?

LORENZO: Lorenzo Miller. I created this audience. I’m a writer.

WRITER: What do you mean?

LORENZO: I wrote: a large group of people from Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and Long Island come to the Golden Theater and watch a play. There they are.

DORIS (Pointing to the audience): You mean they’re fictional too? (LORENZO nods) They’re not free to do as they please?

LORENZO: They think they are, but they always do what’s expected of them.

WOMAN (Suddenly a WOMAN rises in audience, quite angrily): I’m not fictional!

LORENZO: I’m sorry, madam, but you are.

WOMAN: But I have a son at the Harvard Business School.

LORENZO: I created your son; he’s fictional. Not only is he fictional, he’s homosexual.


Jaybird 02.23.06 at 1:08 pm

I don’t understand the point of this post.

Was it a “look, Christians are not only humorless but also heavily into censorship too” post?

Was it a post trying to get us to understand that the Vicar, though somewhat backwards, did have a legitimate grievance and had every right to act as his faith directs him?

Was it merely a “ha ha religious people are dumb” post?

I’m not getting the meta-message here.


chris y 02.23.06 at 1:17 pm

jaybird, I’m very superficial (I hate anything official), but I think it was a “Set aside the rights and wrongs of the show and set aside the opinions of the vicar, how many critical layers and ironies can you find in somebody watching a show set in Hell and saying it made him feel like he was in Hell” post.


chris y 02.23.06 at 1:18 pm

Also that it’s as funny as Hell fuck.


rollo 02.23.06 at 5:26 pm

Commenting on comments in comment boxes about other comments, like yours Simstim’s on Holbo’s for instance, is something one doesn’t usually feel tempted to take up, but in the hellish atmosphere of recursively emptying hermeneutics established by the post itself, not to mention the comment itself, it seems somehow appropriate, or, if not appropriate, apt.
We can say “seems” because who can know?
Just as the question “Is this hell?” gains or loses semiotic weight according to the immediate subjective conditions of the questioner – so that a vicar at a play, or a vicar at a play in a news story mentioned in post and its subsequent comment thread, can be a token for, or even a reply to the question whether or not it would be a good thing to continue this line of interrogation, under the circumstances the question as asked or as potential and unasked but present in the conditions represented – whether this (the landscape in which the question rises) is a play, whether I myself as questioner am a vicar, or am like a vicar in some way, whether this is hell and if so if it is hell in a traditional sense or in a new and still-undefined sense whose determinants are proprietary and outside the frame of the discussion as we take it up – begins to fold back in on itself as it’s asked, and become, if not void of any worthwhile rational content, moot.

Comments on this entry are closed.