Oh boy, ILX! That's where I'm a viking!..?

but i thought the original purpose of this thread (beyond causing a hilarious, Sneetches-esque clusterfuck) was to determine what was the actual proper meaning of the joke? yeah, people lobbied for 'respect' for their view of the joke, but I feel like both groups wanted theirs accepted as canonical statement and that's where the friction is.

and in that lens, I'm team Granny

yeah, i think one interesting thing about yesterday's variation on this discussion is the idea that jokes/humor, for some observers, occupy this kind of functionalist space, where hearing it differently than intended means something incorrect is being done, and someone doing this needs to admit they're doing it wrong and stop. and i have no problem thinking about many activities this way - like, if you're trying to get an elevator to go up by whispering to the buttons "please, go up," you're obviously using an elevator wrong.

but this doesn't really hold up with jokes for me, even if i bought fully into this functionalist standpoint, since i think of the function as "laughter" rather than "laughter, but it only counts if it followed this particular intended mental path." if you laugh at the joke, you got what you came for. whereas the elevator user would indeed seem a dope if they posted about how valid their method was, even as they grew more frustrated with its failure. the people hearing a joke differently - whether Ralph's, or "schul," or an MST3k reference they don't fully "get," have no frustration to complain about. the function is fulfilled!

if jokes are to be understood functionally (rather than more open-endedly, like literature), i think they should be still filed with other kinds of everyday tools or practices that have looser "correct uses." like, ten people could buy the same weekly planner and have totally different ways of filling it in and using it to stay on top of things (or using it as a journal, or only filling in birthdays), and all ten could be very satisfied with their use of this tool. there are all kinds of little crafty or practical things we do around the apartment that are neither the "intended" nor an "incorrect" way of using the tool.

xpost i think the most basic purpose of the thread was just to see: how many people actually hear it one way versus the other? because it was being much discussed elsewhere on the internet, and this would be a way to put some numbers on how common the two hearings are.

but i think the way most of us engaged was to kind of treat it, in sport, as if it were a really important issue to which we'd bring our weightiest arguments and most overblown rhetorical moves. like, because it was so obviously trivial and impossible to actually settle, there was a kind of play in tackling it as a matter of life and death. but maybe there was more heat than i remember? it's been a long time and even that kind of "play" is way less interesting to me now, which might account for the friction between me and GD, if they're seeking to "play" in that manner and i'm not anymore?

STOP IT JUST STOP IT

― kinder, Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:41 PM (eight years ago) bookmarkflaglink

"where hearing it differently than intended means something incorrect is being done, and someone doing this needs to admit they're doing it wrong and stop."

You're reading too much into it. I have no problem with someone finding different humor in jokes than what was intended. Laughing is good! Why on earth would I want someone to stop doing it? But objectively, interpretations can be wrong. Trying to force jokes into this postmodern "but what is truth? What is a joke even?" space rather than just admitting you didn't interpret it the way it was intended is ridiculous.

I have never denied that I interpret the joke differently than the way that that writer says he intended it! I just don't think the author's intention is very important or interesting!

And again, I find it hard to believe that if Weinstein was an excel-er you'd go down this "all interpretations are equally correct" path and being dismissive of creator's intent

"I am the general population! This is the default, obvious reading of this joke! You "dream" believers are maniacs clinging to an unsustainable, over-stretched, non-joke.
"

JOAN CRAWFORD LOVES CHACHI WHERE R U

That's pretty narcissistic isn't it? "My reaction is the only important thing. Who cares what the artist intended!" I find them both (audience reaction and artist's intention)interesting and important!

""Dream" theory just doesn't make sense.

― Doctor Casino, Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:02 AM (eleven years ago)"

the way most of us engaged was to kind of treat it, in sport, as if it were a really important issue to which we'd bring our weightiest arguments and most overblown rhetorical moves. like, because it was so obviously trivial and impossible to actually settle, there was a kind of play in tackling it as a matter of life and death.

OMG the dress is blue and gold, how can anyone say differently, am I being gaslighted, etc

YANNY

I think it's a dream, also I think they should stop making superhero movies and cats should be allowed outside at night and Koko the gorilla never learned a language.

I fall firmly on the side of “he dreams he’s a Viking” but it’s starting to feel a little gross, like we are attempting to impose our hegemony on the unwilling. Like, clearly some of us are doubling down in the face of any and all logical arguments, but if this is the hill they want to die on, I say they should be allowed to live on their weird hill in peace.

Fwiw, I think the author's thoughts on their own work and their intentions should carry some weight with songs, poems, novels, etc, as well as jokes, though they don't completely limit them. (Fun fact: the word "intention" never appears in La mort de l'auteur.) I also think this line was kind of random and absurd in a way that makes it easy to hear different ways or even just as quasi-gibberish where the character himself may not have really known what he meant. That said, hearing it as a weirdly phrased literal statement that belies confusion about how dreams work seems much funnier and more clever to me than a made-up macho synonym for 'badass', and also seems to be what the writer had in mind.

"dental plan...lisa needs braces" is clearly suggesting that Homer uses mnemonic devices to remember important facts

I have always been on Team Dream, but have to admit that Team Excel is a better joke

but yes, also cannot fathom why people are agitated about it, especially after more than a decade, but guess that's all part of the, well, not exactly fun, but whatever it is.

i don't think the joke is funny either way tbh

cannot fathom why people are agitated about it, especially after more than a decade, but guess that's all part of the, well, not exactly fun, but whatever it is.

new board description

GD, and again, I find it tedious that your rebuttal to someone dismissing authorial intent is to suggest that they are arguing in bad faith, that they would doubtlessly argue differently if the author supported them. The counterargument might be: okay, so if the author supported ME, YOU would surely admit YOU were wrong... and if this is the case, then there is no point ever discussing anything or sharing different interpretations! The first response to all threads could just be going to look up what the author said, everyone agrees "well, case closed," and then we lock the thread. Great message board idea!

I get agitated when ppl will not ever admit they are wrong, and esp when it devolves into "but what does it even mean to be 'wrong'???".

You tried peddling this "if you don't indulge me and assuage my ego by proclaiming al interpretations of a joke to be equally correct than that's the end of culture!" bullshit already and I'm still not buying it

what is your major problem

I'm not saying it's bad faith. You truly do believe all interpretations of a joke are equally correct. I don't. The world keeps a twirlin

You were pretty convinced you were right and dreamers were goofy tho huh

i'm too annoyed to go cut and paste what I just typed about digging through shit i said 10 years ago

but just to clarify the "bad faith" point, this happens when you repeatedly assert that surely if the author agreed with me I would argue differently. iow, "you're only taking this tack out of convenience, not because you believe it." iow accuisng me of arguing in bad faith. you've made this same point several times. it's weak.

I get agitated when ppl will not ever admit they are wrong, and esp when it devolves into "but what does it even mean to be 'wrong'???".

As the person who literally said "what do you mean by wrong" yesterday I'll respond to that, though I can't believe this revive is still going and actually seeming heated(?!). Granny I am 100% with you that author's intent has significance and in this particular case I am close to similarly certain that the "dream" interpretation is the correct one by that metric. However, I think Dr. C was otm with this comment:

yeah, i think one interesting thing about yesterday's variation on this discussion is the idea that jokes/humor, for some observers, occupy this kind of functionalist space, where hearing it differently than intended means something incorrect is being done, and someone doing this needs to admit they're doing it wrong and stop. and i have no problem thinking about many activities this way - like, if you're trying to get an elevator to go up by whispering to the buttons "please, go up," you're obviously using an elevator wrong.

but this doesn't really hold up with jokes for me, even if i bought fully into this functionalist standpoint, since i think of the function as "laughter" rather than "laughter, but it only counts if it followed this particular intended mental path." if you laugh at the joke, you got what you came for. whereas the elevator user would indeed seem a dope if they posted about how valid their method was, even as they grew more frustrated with its failure. the people hearing a joke differently - whether Ralph's, or "schul," or an MST3k reference they don't fully "get," have no frustration to complain about. the function is fulfilled!

if jokes are to be understood functionally (rather than more open-endedly, like literature), i think they should be still filed with other kinds of everyday tools or practices that have looser "correct uses." like, ten people could buy the same weekly planner and have totally different ways of filling it in and using it to stay on top of things (or using it as a journal, or only filling in birthdays), and all ten could be very satisfied with their use of this tool. there are all kinds of little crafty or practical things we do around the apartment that are neither the "intended" nor an "incorrect" way of using the tool.

This articulates better what I was getting at by asking that question. Especially in the era of comedy that was ushered in in part by the Simpsons, a lot of humor is derived from absurdity, random juxtapositions. If you dig into the Twitter thread where Weinstein's comment that led to this revive came from, you will find lots of jokes where his commentary is "we just thought that was funny" or "funny sounding name" or something to that effect. In those cases, where there is less substance to the author's intent, is it similarly "wrong" to find humor in a different understanding? Or only when there is a more specific joke that you didn't get? That test case doesn't sum up the whole argument but does help to elucidate a bit for me why comedy is a valid application, to some degree, of this death-of-the-author pomo type thinking.

You were very adamant that your interpretation was correct and the other side was goofy. So I find it hard time believe you wouldn't at the least place SOME importance on authorial intent and find it the TEENSIEST bit interesting if Weinstein said he meant "excels at".

there's a logical leap in your "So..." that doesn't track for me. but w/e --- I came back into the thread today intending to offer the functionalist/elevator post as a new wrinkle/angle that could open some more discussion. all you're interested in, seemingly, is repeating "you're obviously wrong and won't admit it." do you do this in IRL conversation?

as for pointing out that i made similarly tendentious posts to yours (but intended as fun/funny) ten years ago ... okay? i've already said i don't see the point of the conversation the same way now, in another post you didn't engage with. at this point i don't really feel like you're here for the joy of the discourse. but maybe you're having a different kind of fun than i'm having? OH NO POSTMODERNISM!!!!

I consider the argument more than settled, but what I'm really curious about is how did it happen that a significant minority of people understood "that's where I'm a viking" to mean "that's what I excel at"? Like as a phenomenon, that's mind-boggling to me aside from what's "wrong," because to this day I have never heard the usage of "[ being] a viking" at something to mean excelling at it. Did thousands of people literally come to that conclusion instantaneously upon seeing the episode, all at the same time, or is that an understanding that spread from person to person among people who were initially confused by the joke?

I found Room 237 very interesting. All these different theories and reactions viewers' had, some mutually exclusive. I love how ppl watching the same film came up with so many different interpretations. I would never want ppl to feel like they weren't free to come up with their own interpretations. But still, I think most of those interpretations are seeing things that aren't there. Which is fine! Some of the theories are much more valid than others imp. But I'm even more curious what Kubrick intended; which symbolism did he consciously use. Knowing his intent doesn't rob me of my own response. Jokes are much less open to this sort of interpretation but it can occur, does occur, and I'm glad. Tickles me that so many came up with what to me is a bizarre interpretation of a straightforward joke. It's more understandable than thinking Ralph meant he was a QB from Minnesota in his sleep, makes more sense than thinking Ralph said "Oh boy sleep! That's where I'm bike king!". But equally wrong.

If I were a viking that was good at sleeping and dreamed about being myself what would I say

For me, the 'exceller' reading was just how the joke landed when I initially heard it. It wasn't until much later that I realized there was even a disagreement. I think that's typically how it happened for excellers. I am curious how quickly anyone realized, after the episode came out, that there was this split in interpretation. It could easily have gone unnoticed for years.

Just to weigh in on something already addressed but

i think one interesting thing about yesterday's variation on this discussion is the idea that jokes/humor, for some observers, occupy this kind of functionalist space, where hearing it differently than intended means something incorrect is being done, and someone doing this needs to admit they're doing it wrong and stop.

isnt at all the thrust and GD and myself and others have been at pains to clearly counter this

Laugh all you like at the incorrect interpretation of the line, it would clearly be as ridiculous to state you could not find an alternate reading funny as it would be to state that the incorrect reading of the line is correct because you find it funny

I do like the idea of Ralph describing something like Theodore Roosevelt out of nowhere.

iirc in the current revive, as opposed to posts from ten years ago, only dreamers have been insisting on the "correctness" of their take. I thought an interesting avenue out of this thread's endless repetitions might be to make this connection between humor and the idea of "correct" interpretation into a subject in its own right, in the process finding something from GD's posts to build upon. you know, like in a conversation.

I saw the episode when it first aired and tbh had zero recollection of this throwaway joke until I looked it up after the debate came up on ilx. I was still a vegetarian when it aired so it was an episode that stood out in my memory otherwise. I probably just heard it as funny random words at the time and didn't think about what the character meant, especially since it has no bearing on the storyline, satire, or message.

I think that would be a short discussion dr c!

Humour is in the eye of the listener (read that one twice eh) and anyone arguing otherwise would be ploughing a hard furrow

But the discussion does seem to me to be solely based around the meaning of the line and not the humour to be found in it, and in that personally (clearly) i think theres no living case for "any interpretation is the meaning"

My first year college poetry teacher used to tell a purported (possibly fake) story about someone who thought "O Attic Shape!" meant "high" because the attic is high up in the house. I feel like that's the same kind of clearly wrong but borderline plausible misreading as "that's what I excel at." Like I'm not saying there is literally no possible pathway from those words to that interpretation, it's just a really bad interpretation where there is clearly a more correct one. Most Ralph jokes are the same joke, i.e. that he understands the world in a stunted and innocent way, like a much younger child. "Can you open my milk, mommy?" to his teacher. "I want to be a triangle!" in response to "be there or be square." "I'm a star wars." So he doesn't really understand what dreams are and think they are literally a place he goes where he is something else. That's it.

And I don't think they idea that you can make a "more correct" interpretation of language is wholly incompatible with some degree of postmodernism. We wouldn't be able to understand each other at all if there weren't more correct interpretations of language in most cases. And we wouldn't misunderstand each other if language was airtight on both ends.

Does anyone ever convert from the dreamer reading to the exceller reading? Conversions in the other direction seem somewhat common (me for one - I hear the dream reading as more natural now), but it seems like dreamers are typically entrenched.

It's a bit annoying, I guess, but it could be taken as a datum in favour of the dreamer reading. If the only way for the exceller reading to take hold is to have involuntarily heard it that way from the beginning, then there's something flukey about the reading.

Oh oh
Dreeeeeamreader
I believe you can get me through the threaaad

Anyone even trying to convert tho?

wow this thread. i guess this is probably the one simpsons topic i've never weighed in on here so here goes.

here's the full exchange:

ralph: miss hoover?
miss hoover: yes, ralph?
ralph: my worm went in my mouth, and then i ate it. can i have a new one?
miss hoover: there aren't any more, ralph. just try to sleep while the other children are learning.
ralph: oh boy, sleep! that's where i'm a viking!

from the way it's written and delivered, this exchange seems to be leading up to ralph saying something like "oh boy, sleep! that's something i'm good at!" which is the kind of lame sitcom line that most shows would have given us. of course, ralph wouldn't have said that because he doesn't really have the self-awareness required to describe himself as being good at something. but i think this is where the confused "wait...does being a 'viking' mean that you're good at stuff?" interpretation comes from. and of course ralph wouldn't have said that either, even if it made any sense, because he never uses metaphors. so, yes, he's talking about a dream. the joke is a little confusing but it's in character for ralph to describe everything with baffling literalness.

what's always kinda weirded me out in this scene is that the kids are dissecting LIVE worms, that they're supposed to pin down. was that really a thing? the only thing i ever dissected in class was a clam. (also, if the worm ralph ate had been dead, presumably it would have been treated with formaldehyde and miss hoover should have called 911 instead of just telling him to go to sleep.)

Yeah, it's actually what annoys me about the argument that the 'excels' reading is more creative or fun - it's the more simplistic, predictable joke. It's only less 'literal' because it requires you to strain the actual line to fit the conditioned expectation.

"Sleeping - now that's where I'm a champ!" That's some Michael Kelso shit.

from the way it's written and delivered, this exchange seems to be leading up to ralph saying something like "oh boy, sleep! that's something i'm good at!

I think this is also debatable, largely because Ralph is blankly enthusiastic about everything except for the episode where Lisa crushes his spirit; it reads to me like Ralph is excited about getting to go to sleep because he gets excited about everything and I have no belief that he has an inner monologue capable of sorting things he does into "I'm good at this" or "I'm bad at this" taxonomies.

what's always kinda weirded me out in this scene is that the kids are dissecting LIVE worms, that they're supposed to pin down. was that really a thing?

Yes. Admittedly not in second grade, but worm dissection is, or at least used to be, a common high school biology activity.

We dissected worms in high school (or maybe Grade 8?) But they were dead and preserved in formaldehyde.

Not gonna try to load this entire thread to find out but does anyone know if Nancy Cartwright has weighed in? The writer's intent seems irrelevant in this situation where we all first experienced the joke through Cartwright's delivery. It's pretty easy to change the meaning of a sentence just by shifting the emphasis.