I get the need to plug for your own book, but the whole last section of the "review" is about things which have nothing to do with the set, something that's actually pretty characteristic of the whole article. While some of the review was clearly in poor taste, I think my biggest problem with it (and the reason for my earlier comment*) is that it doesn't really review anything, especially not what TNE has made its name as: a place to find overviews of new parts and interesting ways they might be used. I have noticed (filtering out the attempts at humor and rebukes of said attempts) that there is more discussion-and more worthy discussion-of new parts here in the comments than in the actual review. I can definitely appreciate a humorous review! Many of the reviews on BZPower, one of my favorite online LEGO communities, are packed with humor, but that humor is playful and fun, not condescending or mean-spirited. As you can see from the comments, this particular brand of humor is nothing if not divisive. And their lasting appeal with AFOLs comes from the recognition that play and creativity are not things people "grow out of", and that kids and adults alike have the intelligence and good taste to appreciate a quality design.Īll in all, this was pretty rough for the site's first dose of "humor". They understand that if a child does not enjoy a toy the burden of responsibility is on the toy, not on the child. Part of the reason the LEGO Group has become such a successful company is that they are a brand that DOES respect children. The "all children are idiots" in the comments and other statements to that effect (I'm reminded of the "little Timmy" straw man some AFOLs use to put down the LEGO Group's actual target audience) also drive me up the wall. I apologize if my response seemed vitriolic, but calling readers "mentally deficient" was tasteless and insensitive even if no cruelty was intended. It does well for my faith in the AFOL community to know that the person they hold in such high regard is not genuinely such a pretentious snob. I am glad to here that Pete is not such an awful person after all. Nevertheless as editor I should have considered how the line could be perceived - yes, it did cross my mind at the time but given the obviously tongue-in-cheek tone of the article I left it in, and so I do apologise that it was offensive to some. I can only be honest and state that for what it's worth that I know Pete (and his kind, accepting heart) well enough to know that no offence was intended. Here I can understand how offence was taken and I've always believed you cannot tell someone to not be offended when they already are. The 'harmless fun' argument aside, I agree in hindsight that "mentally deficient" was in borderline taste. If the result is that some people's expectations of this site were not met, too bad. I knew it would not match everyone's sense of humour, but that's no reason to not publish it. I take things oh-so-terribly seriously here most of the time so was happy to have a satirical post for once. Well I'd be the first to agree that this is not the 'norm' post here at New E - indeed, that's partly why I was happy to publish it. Despite the fact some excellent ripostes have been made in the comments I am very sad that others are such vindictive, vitriolic personal attacks on Pete.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |