"Ego maniac - little homies call me brainiac
Ice Cube's an asshole and it ain't an act"
-Ice Cube in Connected for Life
So lo and behold, what should drop into my comment box, but some unsolicited advice from my favorite anonymous commenter. The comment was in response to my snarky remark on Ives Galarcep joining Fox Soccer Channel, in which I said:
Anyway, I suppose the behemoth media universe needed to balance itself out after Max Bretos moved in the opposite direction to ESPN. How in the world do these people get their jobs in the first place?
And to which M. Anonymous replied:
Q: How do these people get their jobs in the first place?
A: By not burning every bridge around them.
Think about that Sigi the next time you decide to flame someone.
The topic of me "flaming" others is something I've mostly ignored, but it has come up more often I expected. Tom Dunmore at Pitch Invasion has gone on record as saying he hates the flames, as has Richard Whittall, as has our friendly anonymous commenter as have some others.
So with my apologies, we're going to get meta for a moment.
For those that never got the joke, Fake Sigi is a character that is supposed to be bombastic, self-centered, smug, superior, and an all around asshole. He was also not supposed to be taken seriously.
As the link that sat on the left side for a long time indicated, the creation of this blog was heavily influenced by Fake Steve Jobs, to the point where most of the early posts were shameless
Of course, I suppose I did it to myself, by writing posts on things like gender issues or the salary cap or FIFA rights which caused a bunch of people to take notice and realize I knew what I was talking about. And all of a sudden, it wasn't cool to say that Richard Whittall was stupider than I thought, or that Don Garber's a walking vice machine, or that Ives Galarcep can't analyze his way out of a paper bag (something that we already knew), or that Grant Wahl asked Don Garber some of the worst questions I've ever heard.
I also suspect that my routine deconstructions of Duane have something to do with my reputation as a flamer, despite the fact that Duane's own sense of self-importance doesn't appear to be an act like my own.
For what it's worth, I don't consider anything I say here to be particularly incendiary or even that personal in the grand scheme of the internet. This blog is pretty tame as fake figments of the imagination go. I don't think that most of what I do even rises to the level of a flame. And besides, it's fake. It's a set up. I'm not lying when I say you shouldn't believe anything you read. I'm not playing it straight, ok?
It's like I said to Drew Carey one day when we were plane-pooling from Manhattan Beach to Seattle: just because I'm an asshole doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. And just because I know what I'm talking about doesn't mean people should take everything I say seriously. I think it's pretty clear when I'm being over the top, and when we stop being polite and start getting real.
Now if the issue is that what I write isn't good, or that I haven't made it clear when I'm messing around, well, that's totally different. But with a few exceptions, the major problem the haters seem to have is that I'm not a good little citizen of the blogger community who holds fire on fellow bloggers or sacred cows. And by and large my response to that is that 1) people need to chill out about the bombast, and 2) if you can't deal with snarky examination by others, then what are you doing putting your writing on the internet?
And like I've said before, I don't expect this blog to get me a cubicle next to Shawn Francis. It's not one of the goals. All I want is Sounders glory and the harmony of MLS dominance. Is that too much to ask?
Fake Sigi out.
16 comments:
Wait, your goal is not to get a cushy professional journalistic job at ESPN? Then why go through the painstaking half hour work of starting a blog? I'm confused Sigi.
And I'm not convinced this isn't the real Sigi with a very clever mask/guise/ruse.
I think, on a meta level, things started going downhill when you took on a guy called "the Don." In films, books, and in real life, that is some pretty treacherous waters....
ESPN's brining me on as commentator for the World Cup. I'll be portrayed as an animated talking head like Max Headroom.
"Now we go to Fake Sigi."
"Damn this game sucks, you guys want to grab a burger or something?"
As for my identity, I won't lie, me being the real Sigi is a possibility.
And for the Don to be out to get me after he paid me all that money to shill for the owners during the CBA negotiations, that guy's the real asshole.
-FS
"just because I'm an asshole doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about."
I feel your pain, bro.
Can I just say the Stupider Than I Thought post is a personal favourite and is kind of a watershed in my time as a blogger?
The issue, FS, is that you can't have it both ways. If you want to write a satirical blog then write one. If you want to be serious, then please do (even though I strongly disagree with a lot of what you write I can recognize that you have an understanding of the game and you add to the conversation). But mixing the two styles up just confuses the issue. And, therefore, the criticism you’ve received regarding it is legitimate.
I can also appreciate that I come off as thin skinned. I'm not. Really. You'll have to take my word for it. But I also work pretty hard at what I do and am compelled to defend myself when I feel it necessary.
But, whatever. I didn't come over here to start an argument. I am curious about this though: If I'm self-important and therefore worthy of scorn, what's that make Bill?
This is the fundamental dilemma of satire - if everyone in the audience can read between the lines, then is it clever enough? If nobody can read between the lines, then is it really satire or just slapstick sprinkled with five dollar words?
I'm not going to draw a formula for you Sig - each writer has his own graphing calculator. But you inevitably will engage some readers and repel others. Hopefully both.
Oh, for chrissakes. Why can't he have it both ways? Because you can't tell the difference? That's your issue, not his. Oddly, I have no trouble at all telling the difference between satire and seriousness, and my head has managed to not explode.
A blog can be whatever its creator wants it to be. One if free to follow one’s muse and to develop one’s own audience, no matter how large or small. There are no rules. If Fake Sigi wants “to have it both ways”, he or she is completely free to do that and be happy with the audience the blog has garnered under this approach. Judging by the fact that Fake Sigi has said he has no aspirations of getting a cubicle next to Shawn Francis, it seems that Fake Sigi is comfortable doing things the way they’ve been done.
As the above commenter said, there’s absolutely no reason Fake Sigi “can’t have it both ways.” It is painfully clear to me whether I am reading a piece of brash Fake Sigi bluster, a satirical fictional vignette, or a thoughtful and well-researched piece. Part of the fun of coming here is not knowing what I am going to get on any given day until I start reading it.
Will such an approach rub some people the wrong way or confuse those who don’t wish to expend brain cells discerning which posts are which? Undoubtedly. Maybe a different approach would garner much larger readership numbers. But then it wouldn’t be the Fake Sigi blog, would it?
Golly gee whiz FS, don't you know that it's wrong to have it both ways?* Sure, having it both ways feels really good, and it has put your blog among the most consistently interesting going at the moment; but it's just wrong, wrong, wrong.* First off, I think that I speak on behalf of a large number of human beings when I say that we are, on the whole, unsophisticated morons almost incapable of discerning the sometimes subtle ideas that are symbolically represented by words, let alone the magical words which appear on a computer screen.* Secondly, having it both ways breaks a commandment, I think.* Nevertheless, it's time for you to make a choice: from now on, the entirety of what you put forth on your blog should be either satirical and scornful, or straightforward and nice.* So choose, but choose seriously, not satirically.* However, if you do choose to choose satirically, then be sure to tell us it's satire, or write it in a red font or something.* Like when Jesus talks in the Bible. Yeah, just like that.*
Then there are those who can have it both ways about having it both ways. (That's, like, exponential inconsistency! Awesome!) It was in a completely different context, of course (something hilarious about Canadian teams having their own league yet still playing in MLS), but I remember visiting another blog recently and reading "if there is a way to have the cake and eat it too, then why not aspire to it?" As a dyed-in-the-wool heretic, I say amen to that.
And speaking of the inimitable Mr. Rollins, as the presumably crippling inability of FS's readers to read between the lines seems to be part of the issue at hand, I thought I'd help everyone out when it comes to your comment:
"But, whatever. I didn't come over here to start an argument. But while I'm here, I might as well continue a mind-numbing argument I'm having with someone else. I am curious about this though: If I'm self-important and therefore worthy of scorn, what's that make Bill?"
*Indicates the possible presence of sarcastic sentiment in this sentence.
Yes, Tezcatzontecatl, it's because I can't tell the difference.
Good God...
BW - Satire does not = insult. The truth is FakeSigi does serious a hell of a lot better than he does satire. But, as you say, it's his blog. He's free to with it what he wants.
And the rest of us are free to defend ourselves/tell him he's full of shit if we feel it necessary.
I'll give him this: Unlike Archer he doesn't block comments that are in opposition to his position.
I'd like to add that FS did ask what people thought about the blog: "Let me know what I could do to improve the site and make it more relevant. Or just things you're unhappy with."
It was there I stated my personal opinion that I didn't find the "flame" posts "particularly interesting".
Maybe I'm forgetting something (I'm sure FS will correct me if so), but I don't remember saying I hated it or anything so strong, and I was simply adding a comment that was in its totality positive feedback for FS about the blog.
I enjoy FS's writing, I just find the non-"flame" posts more interesting: in fact, on occasion some of the best soccer blogging out there.
Wow, this thread has become a lot of win.
Richard - I'm glad to hear it, that post has aged like a fine wine.
Duane I - I'll admit that at times the satire and serious can be intertwined, but I also feel that at this time readers should error on the side of dismissal rather than outrage. That may change.
Of course you're welcome to defend yourself, and you do so with much vigor.
As for Bill, I find most of his stuff well thought out and entertaining. He's not right all the time, but he's even more over the top than I am. He'll even on occasion admit that he's wrong. His rhetoric doesn't get to me in the least.
Elliot - And that is part of the sign of success.
Anon - Quite right.
scorn - Very nice!
Duane II - Actually, I agree that I do serious better than satire. Silly is a big part of the blog, but even I find the satire a bit wanting at times. For now I'm going to continue to have fun.
Tom - What I was referencing was a post you made where you linked to my hatchet job on Wahl's Garber interview and said something about not being impressed with the flaming style. I'm too lazy to track it down now.
Thanks for the compliment on the serious writing.
-FS
Duane: You are the one who asserted he couldn't have it both ways. To me that reads "I can't tell the difference between the two, so I need you to decide which way you're going to go for me." I am telling you not only can he, he does it better than most soccer writers out there. Also, my criticism isn't leveled solely at you. It is pointed at anyone who cannot follow the bouncing ball.
His analysis of the CBA negotiations, and the current issues of WPS are far more insightful and informative than anything that anyone else has written, bloggers and journalists alike. And then he'll turn around and drop a gem like this one: http://www.fakesigi.com/2010/01/first-day-of-sounders-fc-preseason-camp.html
When you're funny, you're fucking funny. FS is fucking funny.
FS -- If this is what you're referencing (I think so), you're mistaken in your recollection. I wrote that your effort at a hatchet job was "fairly unsuccessful", but didn't reference anything to do with "flaming".
When standing on the shoulders of midgets, sometimes you hop up and down to get noticed... sometimes you do it just to be mean.
Doesn't satire frequently "try to have it both ways"? I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I think there's a difference between parody and satire that's getting lost here in the comments. If FS were simply trying to imitate and caricature Real Sigi, that would be parody (think your typical Saturday Night Live). Using humor to advance a point or make a critique is satire (think Colbert Report/early Mad magazine). Personally, I think satire can be deadly serious. I think if you look at the body of posts as a whole, it's usually trying to make a serious point. So I personally don't find the switch in tone from overt satire to serious stuff to be jarring.
I just don't think FS, or any blogger, has to choose between a satirical and serious tone. I think they're compatible, and FS announces his intent pretty clearly.
Post a Comment