Aaron Sorkin is a pitcher or a catcher?
November 16, 2006 9:16 AM Subscribe
Sometime within the last month, someone blogged a great parody of Aaron Sorkin's writing style, imagining a discussion between a pitcher and a catcher (or maybe a manager) conferring on the mound.
The context was whether Studio 60 will survive or not, which for the sake of humanity I personally pray it does. Since there are about ten trillion blog posts of that format, I'm hoping that someone remembers this one.
The conversation went something like
PITCHER: So here we are at the World Series.
CATCHER: Brazil. In 1948, Brazil produced 53 million bananas.
PITCHER: I got a Brazilian wax the other day. But perhaps that is more information than you intended to obtain.
CATCHER: Let's walk. In 1952, Brazil underwent a dramatic revolution in its weaving industry.
PITCHER: I'm hoping for a dramatic revolution on my fastball.
And so on. But better. Anyone?
The context was whether Studio 60 will survive or not, which for the sake of humanity I personally pray it does. Since there are about ten trillion blog posts of that format, I'm hoping that someone remembers this one.
The conversation went something like
PITCHER: So here we are at the World Series.
CATCHER: Brazil. In 1948, Brazil produced 53 million bananas.
PITCHER: I got a Brazilian wax the other day. But perhaps that is more information than you intended to obtain.
CATCHER: Let's walk. In 1952, Brazil underwent a dramatic revolution in its weaving industry.
PITCHER: I'm hoping for a dramatic revolution on my fastball.
And so on. But better. Anyone?
Yeah...that's actually really terrible. Just to pick one glaring mistake out of the dozen I found on a cursory reading: Sorkin obsesses over dividing one coherent thought across two characters' dialogue — like, for instance, when he split that Margaret Mead quote between Sheen and Malina — so when Leo says, "Then you know what you've got to do," Danny wouldn't toss a throwaway interjection and leave Leo to finish the line.
If you think it's funny, so be it — but that's an incredibly poor imitation of Sorkin's writing style.
posted by cribcage at 10:32 AM on November 16, 2006
If you think it's funny, so be it — but that's an incredibly poor imitation of Sorkin's writing style.
posted by cribcage at 10:32 AM on November 16, 2006
Also, Sorkin loves to have characters repeat phrases to each other. The parody seems to have entirely missed this concept.
I love Sorkin's writing, mannerisms and all, but I have to take it in small doses. I own the Sports Night DVDs (I think it's his best work). Normally I'd watch an entire series back-to-back-to-back. I can't do that with Sports Night because after a couple of episodes the Sorkinisms get too annoying.
But still, the man can write.
(I love that Sorkin's characters are intelligent. As a tangent: I'm watching the Seinfeld DVDs. The show is as good as I had remembered. But what I hadn't remembered is how smart it is. The characters are smart. The dialogue is smart. It's laden with history and literature. Larry David is awesome. So is Sorkin.)
posted by jdroth at 10:44 AM on November 16, 2006
I love Sorkin's writing, mannerisms and all, but I have to take it in small doses. I own the Sports Night DVDs (I think it's his best work). Normally I'd watch an entire series back-to-back-to-back. I can't do that with Sports Night because after a couple of episodes the Sorkinisms get too annoying.
But still, the man can write.
(I love that Sorkin's characters are intelligent. As a tangent: I'm watching the Seinfeld DVDs. The show is as good as I had remembered. But what I hadn't remembered is how smart it is. The characters are smart. The dialogue is smart. It's laden with history and literature. Larry David is awesome. So is Sorkin.)
posted by jdroth at 10:44 AM on November 16, 2006
Response by poster: I wouldn't say it's an incredibly poor imitation. It hits a lot of the high notes, and the scenario is a pretty funny one. But since you're throwing stones, let's hear your sorkin parody, maybe it'll be even more super awesome!
posted by felix at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by felix at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2006
You're right. Perhaps the quarterback was aiming for a magic, invisible ghost. I have never played NFL football, therefore I am disqualified from observing that there were no eligible receivers in that part of the field.
I apologize.
posted by cribcage at 11:21 AM on November 16, 2006
I apologize.
posted by cribcage at 11:21 AM on November 16, 2006
Response by poster: Having summoned, and then managed to vanquish, the Mysteriously Bitter One True Defender of the Authentic Voice of Alan Sorkin, my work here is done. *cape* *whoosh*
posted by felix at 11:44 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by felix at 11:44 AM on November 16, 2006
Oh, we're a hydra, josephine. My glass house is freshly windexed, so I can see the woodenness of some of the dialogue. Those are good stabs, though. (And word up on Sports Night being his best work. That stuff glistens.)
posted by chicobangs at 11:56 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by chicobangs at 11:56 AM on November 16, 2006
Having summoned, and then managed to vanquish, the Mysteriously Bitter One True Defender of the Authentic Voice of Alan Sorkin, my work here is done. *cape* *whoosh*
I imagine it must be very embarrassing to have just referred to him as "Alan."
posted by kindall at 6:10 PM on November 16, 2006
I imagine it must be very embarrassing to have just referred to him as "Alan."
posted by kindall at 6:10 PM on November 16, 2006
Response by poster: *tears off chapeau, throws it on the floor*
*stamps on it*
oh you thrice-damnable jackanape!
posted by felix at 8:46 AM on November 17, 2006
*stamps on it*
oh you thrice-damnable jackanape!
posted by felix at 8:46 AM on November 17, 2006
« Older What natural languages have unusual properties? | Anything I can do to increase my pain tolerance? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by hamster at 9:21 AM on November 16, 2006