Is the Jiffy Pop slogan a completely legitimate for charades? In my mind, absolutely! In fact it's a boffo entry…even if no one had ever heard of it. We have become lazy charades players. The fun is in the imaginative, concatenated antics one must go through—both actor and guesser. I'd like to try charades when most of the entries no one has heard of—with the usual caveats of no foreign phrase nor proper names (or not as the case may be).
We should have a lot more symbolic gestures. In addition to past tense, extend the ending, rhymes with (By the way, none of this going through the alphabet gesture, that should be illegal. That is the game of spelling.), and the normal categoric introduction, why not have preface sound same as (that would eliminate the silly spelling), future tense (and/or other verb forms), more specific, more general, part of speech, i.e. noun, verb, adjective, adverb), plural or possessive, opposite, and gestures for common small words. Perhaps a gesture for "this person recently mentioned it in conversation". I'm sure we could think of more useful gestures.
It's time to take charades to a whole new level of fun. We need more Jiffy Pop slogans.
Actually, you've brought up a subject that has long been near and dear to my heart: yes, Yes, YES! Get rid of the charades rule that requires players to submit only words or phrases that are known to members of the other team. As you say, getting rid of the rule would most likely improve the game. One of the greatest charade ideas I ever had to act out was an entire Henny Youngman joke. "Patient: Nobody listens to me. Doctor: Next!" (Was this Bob Nascenzi's?) Of course, it went the full three minutes, but those were some pretty hilarious three minutes.
But I have a more serious reason for opposing this rule. There is no way that anybody can know with any certainty what information is in someone else's head. We have a fundamental principle in American law that a statute must be written so that an average citizen can determine ahead of time what particular conduct is prohibited. People should not be required to guess at what they are permitted or not permitted to do. The "knowledge" rule in charades offends this bedrock principle. Necessarily, one must guess at what books, movies, television shows or quotes the members of the other team knows. I once set off a big unpleasant argument over the use of the book Mansfield Park. I assumed that this book by Jane Austen was generally known. I was accused of being unfair and elitist. Didn't Dad once use Kristin Lavransdatter as a charades idea?
I'm fine with the other rules: limit to 7 words, no foreign language words. But get rid of the "knowledge" rule.
I think the problem is that people are too wedded to the idea of winning and not open to the adventure that charades is. As you say, some of the fun is not knowing. Plus, it's a chance to learn something new. (I must say, though, that there may be some limit here. Jimmy Davis' use of the title of his physics textbook at Carnegie-Mellon -- one can safely assume that no one knows this -- might be out of bounds.)
Often mistaken for Dad, Bill, I believe, used Kristin Lavransdatter. It was a long, hotly rebuked Botticelli game, as I recall. I'm still not sure who Kristin is. (I had to look it up once again.) Anyway, as you say, we are in absolute, total, simpatico agreement. Life would be, oh so much more amusing.
Speaking of amusing, application of the "knowledge" rule would most likely have deprived us of one of the most inventive, best acted and possibly the flat-out most hilarious charades performance ever: Bill giving us his "Sensuous Lobsters" impersonation. This was an ad line from a sign on the main drag of Long Beach Island, and obviously not generally known.
7 comments:
I'm trying to get you Dad to view this. Truly a classic (that I have never seen before…I swear.)
I remember this as clear as day. And, I think that the ubiquitous Jiffy Pop slogan is completely legitimate for charades.
As a kid, I really appreciated the Halloween theme. I think that this line would have been better: "I want someone to eat...my Jiffy Pop."
Is the Jiffy Pop slogan a completely legitimate for charades? In my mind, absolutely! In fact it's a boffo entry…even if no one had ever heard of it. We have become lazy charades players. The fun is in the imaginative, concatenated antics one must go through—both actor and guesser. I'd like to try charades when most of the entries no one has heard of—with the usual caveats of no foreign phrase nor proper names (or not as the case may be).
We should have a lot more symbolic gestures. In addition to past tense, extend the ending, rhymes with (By the way, none of this going through the alphabet gesture, that should be illegal. That is the game of spelling.), and the normal categoric introduction, why not have preface sound same as (that would eliminate the silly spelling), future tense (and/or other verb forms), more specific, more general, part of speech, i.e. noun, verb, adjective, adverb), plural or possessive, opposite, and gestures for common small words. Perhaps a gesture for "this person recently mentioned it in conversation". I'm sure we could think of more useful gestures.
It's time to take charades to a whole new level of fun. We need more Jiffy Pop slogans.
Actually, you've brought up a subject that has long been near and dear to my heart: yes, Yes, YES! Get rid of the charades rule that requires players to submit only words or phrases that are known to members of the other team. As you say, getting rid of the rule would most likely improve the game. One of the greatest charade ideas I ever had to act out was an entire Henny Youngman joke. "Patient: Nobody listens to me. Doctor: Next!" (Was this Bob Nascenzi's?) Of course, it went the full three minutes, but those were some pretty hilarious three minutes.
But I have a more serious reason for opposing this rule. There is no way that anybody can know with any certainty what information is in someone else's head. We have a fundamental principle in American law that a statute must be written so that an average citizen can determine ahead of time what particular conduct is prohibited. People should not be required to guess at what they are permitted or not permitted to do. The "knowledge" rule in charades offends this bedrock principle. Necessarily, one must guess at what books, movies, television shows or quotes the members of the other team knows. I once set off a big unpleasant argument over the use of the book Mansfield Park. I assumed that this book by Jane Austen was generally known. I was accused of being unfair and elitist. Didn't Dad once use Kristin Lavransdatter as a charades idea?
I'm fine with the other rules: limit to 7 words, no foreign language words. But get rid of the "knowledge" rule.
I think the problem is that people are too wedded to the idea of winning and not open to the adventure that charades is. As you say, some of the fun is not knowing. Plus, it's a chance to learn something new. (I must say, though, that there may be some limit here. Jimmy Davis' use of the title of his physics textbook at Carnegie-Mellon -- one can safely assume that no one knows this -- might be out of bounds.)
Often mistaken for Dad, Bill, I believe, used Kristin Lavransdatter. It was a long, hotly rebuked Botticelli game, as I recall. I'm still not sure who Kristin is. (I had to look it up once again.) Anyway, as you say, we are in absolute, total, simpatico agreement. Life would be, oh so much more amusing.
Speaking of amusing, application of the "knowledge" rule would most likely have deprived us of one of the most inventive, best acted and possibly the flat-out most hilarious charades performance ever: Bill giving us his "Sensuous Lobsters" impersonation. This was an ad line from a sign on the main drag of Long Beach Island, and obviously not generally known.
And "a Tyrannosaurus Rex using dental floss".
Post a Comment