Far be it from me to question our own Cecil, wise as he is, but I’m going to take (slight) objection to the first sentence in the recently re-posted classic “A king’s wife is a queen, so why is Elizabeth II’s husband still only Prince Philip?”, which reads:
Really, Cec - was that necessary? It wasn’t even funny. I’m not getting all PC on you, but I thought you better than tacky, purile yuk-yuks.
Esprix, disappointed
Well I thought it was funny.
I think your missing a key point here. Part of Cecil’s humor is that his answers are often very accurate in the details, yet childish in its delivery. Nothing in his past columns seems to indicate otherwise.
In the example you point out, Cecil addresses and answers the question asked reasonably and logically. At the same time, he’s childish by making stereotypical remarks that are inaccurate. Cecil himself has dismissed the very subject you’re ridiculing him on.
It’s intelligent, witty, and often accurate. It’s also stupid, childish, and inaccurate.
It’s this sense of humor I find refreshing (It’s also the kind of humor I think has been missing from some of his columns lately.).
I have noticed that Cecil (or one of the several Cecils) has a real problem with gay and transgendered issues.
One of the reasons why I participate in the message board, but no longer bother with the column itself . . .
I thought he meant the Queen of Thpain.
Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say Cecil has a problem with LGBT issues, nor would I say he was homophobic, and heaven knows he’s at least as un-PC as Bill Maher, but I guess I just expected him to have a little classier sense of humor. It just kind of reads like he’s a good ol’ boy who makes equally off-color comments about “some broad’s tits” or “those uppity black folk.” It’s just kind of… disappointing.
Esprix
[QUOTE]
I thought he meant the Queen of Thpain.**
Thtop it you thilly!!
I see the same high standards I attribute to Cecil I needn’t apply to some of the rest of the Dopers. :rolleyes:
Esprix, unimpressed
Esprix- You’re right. That was pretty cheezy and I apologize.
I think you’re all over reacting. Everybody is really quick to pounce on anybody who complains that cecil or david b. or anybody else mocked them in a response, saying “it’s humor, he mocks EVERYBODY!”
But then when you can apply the mocking to yourself, then it’s tacky and inappropriate.
Can’t we just accept that anything and everything is fair game for mockery, instead of “anything and everything except ME”?
Shame on you, Esprix and Eve, two of the sharpest and most biting senses of humor on the board getting all uppity about a dumb joke…
Esprix
I am in complete agreement with Joe_Cool here. Cecil mocks everybody.
Try reading any other column by Cecil Adams. The best you can say is that it is a cheap shot, but that is part of what he does, and that is one thing I, for one, like about him.
Tell us you will have never told a gay joke, then say something.
The column was witty and I learned something. I think you and *Eve need to chill out.
Well, I sure as hell thought it was funny. And not at all out of character for Cecil. And I also have not noticed Cecil having a “real problem with gay and transgendered issues”.
Let’s take it in the spirit in which it was intended, and move on, sans the PC, OK?
Once again, please - I’m not “getting all PC,” and I understand Cecil’s humor, and I am certainly not telling him he’s wrong, or to stop, or that I’m boycotting his books. Rather, the remark would have been funny if it had actually been funny - as it was, it caught me as kind of forced and unnecessary (and therefore unfunny), thereby disappointing me.
YMMV, as always.
Esprix
I’m gonna have to get Esprix’s back on this one. There was no obvious need for a “queen” joke there, based on the question. I appreciate the impetus to share a laugh with our queer brothers and sisters, so if Unca Cecil absolutely has to shoehorn some queen humor into the column, I, at least, hope that he’ll care enough to bring the full strength of his wit to the joke. As it was, I thought it was kinda awkward, and thus gratuitous.
Hmmm. Maybe I was reading too much into it, but I found the joke even more crass than a simple lisping queer joke, and thus even funnier. (Guilty pleasure funny, to be sure.) I took it as poking at Philip’s evident emasculation – I mean, at least from the outside, it seems obvious who wears the pants in the royal family. So is Cecil implying NOT that Philip is gay, but rather the Eunuch “Queen” to Elizabeth the King.
Or, maybe it’s just a stupid gay joke.
Just my opinion, but I found the joke funny, 'cause Cecil was knocking the stereotype of what a homosexual is like; the lisping, limp-wristed cariciature that we’ve come to know and despise. THAT’S what I saw Cecil mocking, not the GLBT community itself.
Oooo!
Cat fight!
Would you have felt better if Cecil had added a “rabbit” at the end of the sentence?
The first thing that came to mind when I first read it was what bungie_us said.
No, not to me.
And I didn’t see it as having anything to do with HRH at all.
As always, YMMV.
Esprix
OK, I have to ask. Surely this is not the only lame joke Cecil has ever made. Why is this the one you have chosen to comment on??
Once again, please - I already mentioned that I know Cecil’s sense of humor is both low-brow and high-brow (appealling to the masses, as he so skillfully does), so yes, I’m sure he’s made other bad jokes. Why did I comment on it? Because I read it. Have I read every one of Cecil’s columns? Alas, no. Did I happen to take special notice because I happen to be part of the group that could have been inadvertently disparaged? Of course.
Esprix