Ralph the Wonder Llama

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

Ralph the Wonder Llama was once called by President Bush to be "the greatest actor/filmmaker of the age". He has appeared in dozens of films and acted as a co-director in several others. Also, far more relevently, but cunningly not the first thing mentioned in this article (Take that, fourth wall!), Ralph the Wonder Llama is our lord and saviour, and he shall come(t) to this earth on the day of Judgement to judge us all on the day of Judgement.

[edit] History

Ralph was born to John and Maurie Cleland, backwoods farmers who had a hunger for vengeance against anything with 'mesh' in its name. After their son was born a Llama, John committed suicide by peanut-butter injection. A distraught Ralph attempted mouth-to-mouth for six hours, refusing to believe that his father was dead.

In the aftermath, Ralph developed Azuremimeitauraphobia, the fear of blue-haired clowns driving red Ford vehicles, and ascended to a higher plane of existance, where he realized his Godhood. Vowing to make his father proud, Ralph entered college with a major in cinematography. He discovered a natural aptitude for the subject, aided by his roommate, Billy Bob Thorton, and the ability to bend reality to match his will.

It was at college where Ralph came into his first contact with The Devil, in the form of a cask of wine. Thus Ralph pledged to fight Satan in all his forms and began consuming all the alcohol that he could get his hands on. As a follower of Ralph, one is required to help fight the Holy War by getting pished. Er, pissed.

After graduating Summa Cum Laude from Mime College, Ralph went to Dallas (Where that American King got assassinated)and met up with John F. Zapruder and got into filming people being killed in slightly gruesome ways (See Auschwitz) Ralph then became the popular filmmaker we love today, having a large and small impact in many films, before leaving this Earthly Plane(t).

[edit] Movie Appearances

• Ralph's first job was as a creative consultant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
• Ralph the Wonder Llama appears in almost every battle sequence in The Lord of the Rings.
• Ralph appears in two scenes in The Wizard of Oz. At one point, he is seen eating a munchkin in the background. In the scene in which Dorothy is introduced to the Scarecrow, Ralph's ears are seen coming progressively closer over the rows of corn.
• Ralph the Wonder Llama plays one of the pilots in the 2006 film adaptation of King Kong.
• In the movie Spaceballs, the bumper sticker on the massive ship originally read "We Brake for Ralph the Wonder Llama." This alternate version was shown only once to a room of drunken Belgians.
• Ralph the Wonder Llama appears in every single Kevin Costner film.
• Ralph is in talks to adapt the Harry Potter films for silent movie theaters.
• Ralph was the real killer in Psycho

[edit] Alph, Son of Ralph

Alph, Son of Ralph, was the chosen messenger of Our Lord and Saviour, sent to inspire a group of University students to follow the teachings of Ralph the Wonder Llama. One night dark and dreary, in the dark depths of the basement of a Union building, a group of drunkards in the quest for more booze found Alph passed out on a slab (of concrete.) Once the slab was gone, and Oprah Winfrey had been vanquished, the students woke up Alph.

Alph taught them the ways of Ralph, the holy nature of the Cask Wine, and the cunning cruelty of the Cherry Advocat. His followers became known as foulies, and supped frequently of the goon, and got pished in His name.

After a particularly heavy night on the goon, Alph took off all his clothes, flew to Israel, fought Batman, and came all over the walls. FOUL seeks to uphold this memory in every way.

[edit] Other Information

• Ralph has no relation whatsoever to Jeff the Amazing Alpaca.
• Ralph is an expert on HowTo:Crash Your Dad's New Corvette
• Ralph has 3 legs.
• Ralph has an extra leg apart from his original three legs.
• Ralph does not have rabies.

[edit] Satire paper

Alex Deckard Chad Fette CLA 11 28 April 2008 The “evolution” of Satire: From Huck Finn to Cartman Satire has been around since ancient times, always used to comment on social issues, and it is being watered down. American satire, which originated in America, has a long history of biting social commentary and spotty subtlety. Ranging from the classics written by Mark Twain and Ambrose Bierce to the more contemporary satirists such as Jon Stewart and that guy writing “Lil’ Bush”, it’s had the highest highs and the lowest lows. American satire has de-evolved to a level far beneath the works of Twain, becoming little more than glorified slapstick simplified for the lowest common denominator. Satire as a literary form has fallen to a state that would be unrecognizable even to those as recent as Orwell and Brooks. “In a more idealistic era, anarchist rebels distributed copies of Animal Farm to Ukrainian peasants in the struggle against Stalinism. Today, satire functions as a kind of ‘therapeutic irony’”(Russel). What this is saying is that satire is now, far from a weapon against corruption and tyranny, simply a brief escape from the real world, used by the common man to pretend that his problems didn’t exist, that everything was fine. Satire today serves the purpose that it once sought to defeat. Instead of opening the eyes of the people to the legitimate flaws of their society, it simply pacifies them, allowing them to merely laugh at the authority figures who continue to fleece the people they govern. “Is this, however, the kind of one-dimensional work satire (if we even want to call this satire, as satire is far more complex and intelligent than a mere over the top repetition and exaggeration of problems) has been reduced to, merely reproducing stereotypes in exaggerated form and acting as though this were immediately a deep analysis and strong commentary?”(Cerebral). What this means is that satire is not only degrading, but American people have lost sight of what satire is. What once would have been called slapstick or low humor, is now called clever political satire. But what is satire? How does one define satire? Is there a distinction to be made, or is an argument about the difference between satire and non-satire nothing more than splitting hairs? “It seeks a reform in public behavior, a shoring up of its audience's standards, or at the very least a wake-up call in an otherwise corrupt culture”(Mitchell). Satire is meant to point out the wrongs of a society, the corruption inherent in a government. When you see satire, it should not be obvious as to what is being lampooned(Mitchell). Modern “satire” is so obvious, so implicit, that it simply becomes a clown in a political mask. As observed in works such as “The Onion”, political humor is just being blanketed with the honor of “satire”. While “The Onion” usually provides sharp criticism and effective parody of politics and news events (as well as the news as a genre), more and more issues delve into the inane, containing not one story that legitimately parodies or even mentions a relevant event or concept. With stories going from “John Edwards Vows to Eliminate All Bad Things by 2011”, which makes fun of John Edwards’ apparent super-niceness, to the irrelevant “Blood…Blood Everywhere…”, which serves only as apparent front page filler containing nothing but the written equivalent of horrified screams, it cannot be said that satire today consistently does its job. “If it does attack some by name, rather than hoping to reform these persons, it seeks to warn the public against approving of them”(Mitchell). This means that satire is only used to specifically call someone or something out if it’s purpose is not to change their behaviors, but to dissuade others from joining them. “Satire at its heart is concerned with ethical reform. It attacks those institutions or individuals the satirist deems corrupt”(Mitchell). This indicates that satire is never used as a simple “gag” or “good hearted jab”, but is a direct and complete lampooning of an entity, be it human or concept, that the author disapproves of. Such “satires” as America: The Book by Jon Stewart do not fit this bill. It simply makes fun of every last facet of American life, government, and culture. I ask you, nay, I implore you to explain how “C-Span Drinking Games” could be satire. It cannot. “Sometime if the satirist is in danger for his or her attack, ambiguity, innuendo and understatement can be used to help protect its author”(Mitchell). Perhaps this is why satire is commonly vague or ambiguous. In the golden age of satire, it was suicide to call out a government official by name. Now, in the golden age of the pseudo-intellectual political fart joke, if you don’t make it painfully clear to your audience who and what you are satirizing, you’re seen as “elitist” and “too cerebral”. Isn’t that what satire is? Something that requires thought? “Juvenalian (named for Juvenal): A harsher, bitter form of satire in which the subject is subjected to contempt and condemnation. This form of satire is more judgmental, asking the audience to respond with indignation to the events it portrays”(Mitchell). Even this does not sink to these levels, though it is certainly beneath the works of Twain. Juvenalian is seen in some of the lower political comedians, such as “Saturday Night Live”, and is characterized by the obvious disgust that those involved have for the subject of their ridicule. “Satire is witty, ironic, and often exaggerated. It uses extremes to bring its audience to a renewed awareness of its ethical and spiritual danger”(Mitchell). Key word here is witty. Wittiness is essential to satire. But “witty” does not mean “constantly hilarious”. Borat was not witty, therefore is not satire. Wittiness is displayed in Huck Finn through clever lampooning of the characters ineptitudes in an obvious yet underhanded manner. There are those that would say that good satire should offer a discussion of both sides (Mitchell). There are those who would say that satire shouldn’t show any particular point of view, but should only entertain, or that it should show only one point of view, completely discounting the other. Which of these is true, is up to society, aside from the second. Satire must have, above all, a point. Satire without a point is just that. Pointless. “It works to make vice laughable and/or reprehensible and thus bring social pressure on those who still engage in wrongdoing”(Mitchell). Satire can also be gentle, poking fun at it’s own audience while still making a point(Mitchell). We’ve decided what satire is, but what is not satire? Satire is clever lampooning of society and it’s foibles. Slapstick is physical comedy, where if it bleeds, it makes people laugh uncontrollably. Farce is comedy where everything is about a laugh, such as fart jokes and low, unsophisticated humor. Borat is an example of farce(Borat). “The bottom line is that Cohen, Larry Charles, marketing staff and god knows how many corporate interests, has figured out a multi-million dollar, lowest-common denominator pleasure that rakes in millions. Just don't call it politically courageous satire”(Borat). The point is that, while it is funny, and while it does try to make some sort of commentary, it fails to do so in a clever or ambiguous manner. Examples would be the “Running of the Jew”, or the characters obsession with Pamela Anderson(Borat). “Sadly, Borat has lowered the quality of satire from five-star political savvy to slapstick that traffics in audacious racism and sexism without biting that hand that feeds”(Borat). Non-satire tends to call itself satire simply to justify displaying and saying horrible things. If a network executive finds out one of the shows on his network offended someone, the first line of defense is to try to pass off the racial slur or off color joke as “satire”. Case in point: Michael “KKKramer” Richards.

[edit] jeff's paper

Throughout history, any given time period is characterized by the dominant culture of that given time. It does not matter if we are talking about the Hellenistic era or the Industrial era, these times are characterized by the dominant culture of that time and a large part of culture is Literature. It is with this in mind that we now look at modernist literature, its causes and defining characteristics, and its lasting impact on literature and modern culture. The Modernist movement was a literary movement developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century with the intention to reform literature from the realist movement. This movement had many forums, notably, the Harlem Renaissance. The literary movement mirrored the cultural movement of the day by challenging the rules. Much as the nation was challenging the standards of morality in dress and visual art, literature was challenging the accepted rules of writing.

 Many of the characteristics of the modernist literature movement are simply borrowed from previous literary movements and styles, however, unlike other movements they feature extreme pessimism, stream of consciousness, and extreme glorification, or beautification, of the mundane. Much of modernist writings focus on realistic events much like the previous literature movement, however, unlike the romantic and realist movement, or any before it, the modernist writers broke from tradition and began to use literature as a boundless forum to communicate an endless number of truths. It is for this reason that the modernist movement is sometimes synonymous with the more aptly named “post- structuralist” movement or the “deconstruction” movements of France. To put it simply, the modernist writers created a new structure of writing which had no definitive rules to limit it. A perfect example of this new writing style comes from Hemingway who broke all conventional methods of writing and composed an entire novella marked with a lack of commas. However simple his literary writing style, he still managed to convey a complex sense of beauty throughout his novella “The Old Man and the Sea”, and he even managed to win a Pulitzer Prize in 1953 for the book. 

Hemingway’s book also provides another interesting example that has become the norm for modernist writing. In his novella “The Old Man and the Sea” Hemingway portrays the role of man in the character of Santiago. Santiago is a fisherman who has been down on his luck and is in desperate need of a big catch in order to survive. Throughout this story, Santiago works hard, never looses hope, has a little success and ultimately dies a broke old man, killed by his pursuit of the big catch. The portrayal of man is as someone who is struggling against a “stacked deck” of defeat. From the very first paragraph of the novella, Santiago is characterized as somewhat of a failure. It is with this pessimism that much modernist writing is marked by. Another key concept in modernist writing is the role of nature. Nature in modernist writing is seen as an adversary to survival. Nothing in life is easy and much of this hardship is the fault of nature. In the novella “The Old Man and the Sea” Santiago may have had better luck if the weather had been favorable and had nature cooperated with his plight for survival. However, due to the pessimistic attitude of the time, nature never seemed to care about the struggle of one man. Another notable characteristic of modernist writing is the absence of active religion. In many of the writings of the time, religion was alluded to or referenced in passing, but rarely did religion play an active role in a major character’s life. Many of the modernist writers, mainly Pound, Gershwin, Hemingway, and Fitzgerald, felt that it was essential to the quality of their work to be well educated and well read. They also believed that that part of that balanced education involved religion. Many of these writers had a very intellectual relationship with literature however, due to the general pessimistic attitude that seemed to pervade the decade, a personal religious experience was rare. In order to more fully understand the modernist movement, we must first understand the social climate of the time. In order to understand Pound’s exclamation to “Make it new!” on must first understand that the writers of that time were truly angered at the previous literary movement. Further understanding of the angst that these writers felt comes from Fitzgerald’s quote, “It seemed only a question of a few more years before the older people would step aside and let the world be run by those who saw things as they were.” (F. Scott Fitzgerald from Echoes of Jazz) The writers of this era witnessed one of the greatest clashes of humanity in modern times, World War I. The youth of this generation saw how low the human race could stoop. They were sent off to War enthusiastic young men, full of hope and dreams of heroism and they returned disillusioned mature men, aged by the horrors of battle.