Thursday, May 17, 2007

Confessions of an E-Fed Conservative

The words "conservative" and "liberal" are tossed around in politics like softballs in a beer league game, even if the terms don't match the person they're describing. For example, many Republicans nowadays are called conservative, yet they spend taxpayer money like their names were Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Re... err, wait a second :). It's not to say that the GOP isn't a conservative party. They lean right on many issues, but it just goes to show that there aren't many people out there who are 100% right or 100% left on anything anymore.

The same goes for eW, at least in most cases. The right and the left are clearly demarcated around the communities, mainly in terms of writing style and wrestling topicality in shows. Some communities, like FW, are homes to staunch conservatives on the surface, while the PTC crowd leans more to the left, at least that's what it seems. There are opposite elements in each camp. You wouldn't know it on FW because discussion for the most part has gone the way of characters like Stone Cold Rocky Helmsley, but if you pay attention to some writers there like Steve, Jamar Short, Lindz, Pete Russo and even Katz sometimes who write stuff that is panned by and large by the "old guard." This isn't to say that they're eW "hippies," and they rarely ever write things that don't have a damn thing to do with their character as wrestlers, but it's still something different. At PTC, the debates rage all the time, with the right mostly being manned by Ben (Caldera), Dean and, surprise-surprise, myself.

Yes, I tend to think of myself as an e-fed conservative. You might not know it from posts like this where I advocate blasphemous things like off-camera, topically non-wrestling related RPs and writings, but I guess just like most in the political arena, I'm not wholly on one side ot the coin. The reason why I say I'm conservative is that I don't go for the supernatural in the ring, and I tend to be against the supernatural characters out of the ring (even though I will never, ever try to keep a supernatural character from being able to do his thing). I like for everything in the ring and on camera to be realistic. I hate when people come up with contrived finishers, and I hate it when people use stuff like the Burning Hammer or Tiger Driver '91 in their regular movesets (remember that, Brunk?). Although I fully support all ex-PTC feds and am in PRIME, I do prefer "old-school" RP feds, and I think everything's better in script.

Yet, I think people who choose to develop their character off-camera in situations where they may not be even thinking about the arena is not only okay, but it should be encouraged for those who want to do it like that. Of course, I believe everything at the end of the day should tie into that person's character as a wrestler, whether you're explicitly mentioning matches, the fed, angles and such or not in the RP. Why even be in something called e-wrestling if you're going to ignore the wrestling part? I do feel like people should have as much creative freedom as they need to express themselves. Besides, why should they care what Randomposter X or William Morgan think about their RP if they're just looking at one RP in one shot out of context of everything that person is doing in their fed? It should matter to the fedhead, the admins, the people in that fed who've been following that arc and that angle, and who know the history behind that RP and where that person may be going with it.

Does this make me any less of a purist? Honestly, I don't think it does, seeing that the goal of the hobby is to create memorable moments with our characters, be they in the ring, on the stick or any which way else. Those who say it's not realistic... well, you may be right, but having a 24 hour promo channel isn't realistic too, and many of us still RP like there is. That's because we in this hobby have several degrees of freedom more than what the folks in the real world have. Our message boards and promo boards act as if we do have all-access to every wrestler out there. If we have that freedom, why should we have to limit ourselves? Why can't Katz and Steve collaborate on an RP or a segment that features Mike Randalls and Joey Melton hunting sand pirates while Scott Riktor dresses up in a bear suit? Okay, maybe that might not have been the best example of something realistic, and yes, I did have to strain to suspend my disbelief at that whole series, but it was entertaining to read, and a lot of times, that's a perfect remedy to the whole non-topical subject.

Ah, I'm rambling again... my point is, no one is completely on one side of the spectrum. I mean, if I had to portray myself with a counterpart, I'd probably be Rudy Giuliani. He's a Republican, and he's no doubt a Republican on several issues, but he leans very much to the right on a few others, like abortion. He's a pro-choice Republican. That may seem like an oxymoron to you, but to others, well, it just means he's a human being. Same with Log-Cabin Republicans or Hawkish Democrats like Joe Lieberman. Or storyline-RP loving eW righties like myself ;)

Besides, I can think of only a few people whom I think could fit the mold of a total extremist on each side. I know Shane Gerlach HATES anything narrative, and feels like if anything has to be told, it should be told in the ring, on the stick, at the arena, or if it has to be out of the arena, that your character acts as if he was on camera the whole time. I also know that Joe Schmidt and Ryan Murray both believe that you don't even have to write about wrestling to get along in this hobby, and that most people are better off staying away from the in-ring aspect. Even in those cases, they aren't completely set in their ways. I know that Shane can pull a storyline RP out of his ass because he did so for the ToC last year (another subliminal plug! ;p), and both Ryan and Joe at least keep their characters somewhat grounded when they write in-card. You're never going to find someone that goes all the way to one side.

And that's how things ought to be. People shouldn't fall in with an ideology. They should stick to their ideals and be themselves, believe what they truly believe is right, what they believe is entertaining, what they believe is enriching.

One more thing before I go... the post from W3:16 that I linked to was in response to the aforementioned Morgan, who said that he had me on ignore and then goes on to say that I'm on there because I "bash" him for no good reason. Well, I can't believe I'm giving him the time of day on here, but I don't bash anyone for no good reason. If I called him out, it was because he was making stupid, ignorant posts like the ones he was making in that thread. I call 'em like I see 'em. I don't pick on people just because I don't like them. I pick on them because they continue to say stupid things, trump them up like they're gospel and then shirk away from any stimulating mental debate that challenges their short-sighted world view because their wittle feewings were hurt that I "bashed" them. Fuck that. If you can't take having your views challenged, and if you can't stand up and defend them without calling your opposition stupid or cowering away from them, then you have no place being on a message board interacting with other people. I have no patience for intolerance and I have no patience for ignorance, and I will say something if I see either one. You all know this to be true.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can't believe I'm saying this (since I'm uber left on political issues and it pains me to brand myself as conservative in ANY context) ... but I'm a FW Conservative.

I need believability. I need trash talking. When I write NEW shows, and if I get an "off-the-wall" angle .. I have to try to work it in a way that would work for me.. to make it seem believable. I absolutely love the NFW East... some crazy shit going on there... but I could not do it for NEW..

Good grief, Holzer .. now I'm depresed to label myself conservative.

THANKS! :P

-sean

Anonymous said...

I'm going to surmise that NFW might be the most liberal e/fwrestling fed out there...

We probably have the least sober roster as well.

1+1 = 2

-MUSTdie

Lindsay said...

You're not the only one, Edmunds. ;)

Although, some of the "off the wall" angles I could do without. Shit, does that mean I'm ultra conservative?

*screams in horror*

Anonymous said...

That's only because Morgan really does suck. I can't understand how people even think W316 is a viable community. In a year, it'll be toast. Bank on it.

Bolich said...

See, I don't really identify myself with liberalism or conservatism when it comes to wrestling booking - well, not in terms of style. While I do try for a more politically progressive show given that most WWE angles smack of right-wing conservative wankery, my approach is that I'm interested in angles that actually seem like that'd show up on a wrestling show.

I don't read most of the long introspective emo dialogues that're so in vogue - as much as I like him, Karl Brown's segments with Foxx are firmly in my tl:dr category. I don't go for long, windy promos, or ten-minute chat sessions, or even certain angles that I find too over-the-top. When I write my segments and plot out my matches I stick to a simple aesthetic: would this pop a live audience, and would it make for a realistic and believable prime-time wrestling program? Maybe that makes me a purist, but whatever. The thing is, things like people teabagging each other on live TV don't bother me because they're perverted or excessive, they bother me because they'd never make it onto prime time TV and they'd probably make the live audience roll their eyes. I personally don't care if Beau Michaels wants to fuck Cameron Cruise in the ass in the middle of the ring, but it doesn't make for a believable wrestling show. No offense to Sean.

Basically, I am okay with zaniness within reason, so long as it works in the context of cable wrestling.