One of the many, many media properties that fled to the web in search of cheap publishing opportunities is Cracked, which I recall from my youth as being "just like Mad, only lame." Given how tedious and puerile Mad was -- even to a tween in the early '80s -- that was an accomplishment.
So I'm astonished to find out that not only is Cracked still around -- on the web, naturally -- but that I see a link to it every few months, and the things I read there are really funny.
(Current top pick: Rod Hilton rewrites Twilight to be shorter and more honest, which I saw when moonrat linked to it.)
Does the exploitative Internet model -- that you can get people to work for peanuts, or nothing, just to get "exposure" -- actually work?
3 comments:
I got sent a MAD collection ranging from the late 1970s to the present and was unpleasantly surprised to discover that a magazine I remembered fondly not only sucks in its present incarnation but sucked madly back when I was actually reading it.
I noticed the same thing last year.
It hasn't been enough to get me to regularly browse the site, but certainly when I see a link to something there my expectations are now pretty high--especially compared to my mental impression of the quality of the magazine when I was a kid.
I loved that Twilight re-write!
and, well, I *blog* for nothing. so, yeah.
Post a Comment