Your criticisms of Wong is something he anticipated within the article; either people get defensive when they are hit with a Glengarry Glen Ross speech, or they get motivated. Wong is trying the same speech on you with his article, and you respond by criticising his ugly tone, his cynicism, the accuracy of his movie references etc. In other words, you are acting defensive, when all he wants you to realise is how harmful getting defensive is, when you should be seeing past the insult and getting motivated. I guess what I am trying to say is this review needed to dodge the trap Wong has written in.
As for Cracked, my problem with it is that whilst this would not be my favourite sort of thing to read, this nine year old article is way better than the average stuff coming out in this day and age. I used to read Cracked all the time back in the early 2010s, but a lot of their good writers left and they never managed to fill the gap with anything comparably funny or insightful. Seanbaby's writing is a work of
Book me today! I also review weddings, funerals and bar mitzvahs.
I personally don't think of it as much getting "defensive" as disliking the rather harsh and condescending tone. Another problem is that Wong anticipated people reacting this way, and instead of addressing the problem, decided to pre-emptively respond to critics while writing it. The accuracy of his references is a valid criticism, since even small mistakes in a persuasive speech can undermine how convincing the overall point is, even if they don't outright contradict what he's saying.
Speaking of Glengarry Glen Ross, it's worth reiterating that the speech had no positive effect on the salesmen's performance, and Baldwin's character notes that he had no interest in helping them improve- he'd rather fire the ones who can't measure up.
Basically, I understand the point he's trying to make, but think he could have made it in a better way.
Your second paragraph cuts off mid-sentence, but I personally like Seanbaby's work, especially what I saw back on his own site, and some of the articles he published in Electronic Gaming Monthly. Some of my favorites include his top 10 lists, from the worst games of all time to the worst ideas to make a game about.
Seanbaby has probably made me laugh harder than most of the others, but I miss Brockway the most keenly. Then again, he’s apparently got a good solo career.
Leave a Comment:
"6 Harsh Truths..." A Case Study in Why I Don't Like Cracked
It's hard to write a review about a site with as many different articles or contributors as Cracked has, but I'll use one article- David Wong's "Six Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person"- to show why I don't like the site.
The basic thesis of the article, is six truths that will help you. Some of the points- you need to do things that help others, you must improve yourself and you can't just give yourself a pat on the back for just being "nice"- are reasonable enough, if not obvious. However, the review has a few problems that make it less helpful.
The first is the ruthless cynicism and negativity. It takes the opposite route to Fight Club and says that a person's main value lies in their career and their accomplishments, and that you should concern yourself with what other people think rather than believing in your own self-worth. While your obituary might begin with your job, it will primarily consist of what kind of person people thought you were(the NFL player won't be well-remembered if he was the perpetrator of the murder-suicide).
The second is the preachy tone, as well as assuming that those who disagree are vain and complacent. It's certainly not fun to read this, nor are many people likely to read it if they're already suffering from low self-esteem. I don't think it's necessarily good to insist that "everyone's special," but it's good to give people positive reinforcement on their strengths and potential so they can build up from there.
The third is a tendency to make glaring factual mistakes. Wong cites Alec Baldwin's speech from Glengarry Glen Ross, particularly the part in which Baldwin says that it doesn't matter whether the salesmen are nice if they can't do their jobs. Of course, Wong is missing the point that the job in question is selling worthless real estate, a job that doesn't help anyone besides their employer. Second, the speech, which has no encouragement or much useful advice, but threatens the salesmen and pits them against each other with their jobs on their line, doesn't help at all. Baldwin concludes by saying he'd recommend firing the salesman, showing that he doesn't have any faith in them improving or any interest in giving them a second chance. At best, such obvious factual mistakes detract from the authors' credibility, and at worst, they end up disproving the points the articles are trying to make.
Perhaps this article has inspired some people to turn their lives around, which is all well and good. However, if one takes a closer look, it lacks substance behind the basic exhortation to make something of yourself, and fails as a meaningful motivational tool. I've seen other articles with similar flaws, especially those written by Wong, so I don't have much desire to read Cracked or recommend it to others.