So here's the question: what do sporks really mean? Are they an existential expression of modern humanity's need for utensils which do . . . gasp . . . MORE THAN ONE THING? Or are they just kind of pointless and plastic? An associate of mine found this site, which he sent to me, and it is possibly the most revolting spork ever made. My zombies won't even eat off of this thing, that is, assuming that they would ever consider using utensils at all, instead of simply ripping the rotting flesh from one another's bones with sharpened, filthy incisors, while moaning and flailing wildly.
Anyway. The point which the Editor was, admittedly incoherently and with the utilization of multiple unnecessary clauses, attempting to make, was: even ravening, slimy, hairless, mindlessly gnawing dead things which kill you and turn you into a living corpse wouldn't use this stupid spork. C'mon, guys, this is not Sporkcalibur. (I know, Mike, I know, I haven't sent it to you yet. Just wait, it'll be worth it, and covered with zombie saliva.) It's FLESH COLORED, for Christ's sake. It looks like a flea comb gone horribly, horribly wrong. For a person who cares deeply about the potential of the fork/spoon hybrid, this is a loathsome and vile excursion into the land of the great travesty of human existence.
Seriously, folks. The Editor may be blind drunk, but some things are just not okay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Trust the Italians to overdesign something as simple as a spork. It makes a better scuplture than eating utensil, and they wind up giving it a design award! No wonder they get their asses handed to them in motorcycle racing. Their bikes are the same way. They deserve to win on looks alone, too bad they can't actually get around the track faster than anyone else.
Sporks have no existential quality, I'm afraid (existence precedes essence, see...) but they might have some sort of connection to a Platonic ideal.
Post a Comment