Rotten Appal Review: What Worked And What Didn't?

Happy Hump Day, my lovely readers and welcome to the Rotten Appal Review! Every Wednesday, the Appalachian State humor publication, the Rotten Appal, puts out new content. The Appal, which has a history of awful and redundant jokes, has become my new Wednesday focus due in part to my annoyance with its lack of quality. Thus, every Wednesday I will take a look at their newest work and give an in-depth critique based on their five newest articles. Together, we'll judge what did and did not work and give them a score. Think of it as helpful criticism as opposed to mirthful derision. (Though, the latter may be more accurate at this point.) But, without further ado, let's jump in and start reading!

The first article that appears under the "Latest" tab is a story about the Legends policeman and his love for Kenny Rogers. While I certainly enjoy the fixation on Kenny Rogers, the joke could have been delivered a little smoother. The concept itself is certainly worthy, but the writing is lazy and awkward.

As for technical mistakes, the title refers to the subject of the story as the "Legend's Policeman" which doesn't really make any sense considering the name of Appalachian's favorite little venue is Legends not "Legend." Though, to be fair, both are decidedly awful.

If I were to make any other quick observations, I must take issue with the description of the officer's facial expressions.

"You can’t tell from Finkle’s plethora of bubbly facial expressions, which consist of “the dead man,” “the coma patient,” and a half smirk when he gets off..."

 Bolding mine. The last statement is far too crass and random to warrant a laugh. While humor is often crass (and rightfully so), satire is meant to be subtle and smooth. This joke, blatantly tossed in there, insults the reader's intelligence and appeals to his fifth grade sense of humor. You can still convey that the police officer is stone faced and hard to please, but it's best to buy into the age-old writing adage, "Show, don't tell."

Moving on to the second latest article, the Rotten Appal takes on the Girl Scouts and attempts to play on their ever-abundant variety of different cookies. Unfortunately, the joke falls short due to the Appal's Achille's heel: blatancy. The joke is that the Girl Scouts are selling cookies made with crack cocaine and that's about all they say. It's an extended one-liner unworthy of an entire article. I did, however, enjoy one of the listed monikers given to the crack-laden cookies, "Tweaker Treats." Had they used that as opposed to the unfunny and in-your-face "F#$%-u-upz" the article may have been a tad bit funnier. (Though, nowhere near chuckle-worthy.)

The last sentence, however, is what kills the joke entirely.

These cookies can be found in your local ghetto and for a limited time only at participating Toys “R” Us stores.

This just doesn't make any sense. Sure, a joke isn't necessarily supposed to be realistic. That's why it's a joke. But a solid, quality joke requires a logical setup in order to be truly hilarious. Stating that the cookies can be found in the ghetto AND Toys "R" Us is confusing. Are you saying that the cookies filled with crack are being marketed towards drug addicts in lower income neighborhoods? Or is your joke that the Girl Scouts are absentmindedly marketing crack to children via a popular toy store? Choose one and run with it but it doesn't make sense to go with both.

Next, there was an article about Blockbuster leaving their lights on. This one almost made me smile which is an infinite improvement over every single other thing that has been put out by the website. What makes this one almost succeed where others fall short is that it plays on the absurdity of reality. It doesn't have to make anything up to be funny and that's what good satire is; it's looking around at existing conditions and events and saying "Look how fucking funny this shit is," albeit slightly more eloquently. Furthermore, I enjoy the reference to late fees and the manager's blissful ignorance of the fact that they will never be paid. It wasn't funny, per se, but it was certainly closer than anything else thus far.

The next article about a slackliner disappearing into a different dimension was another improvement compared to past articles. Again, while not worthy of a laugh, it certainly garnered some amount of amusement. However, I think it could have, like the Girl Scout article, been better put to use as a one-liner as opposed to an entire article. If I were to express any other grievances, I suppose I could have done without the slackliner being naked. It's not really additive to the joke and, once again, appeals to a juvenile sense of humor.

The fifth and last article under the "Latest" tab is a story about the growing tensions between IHOP and Waffle House. While it certainly had promise, it's just sort of boring. The obvious jokes concerning Waffle House's hygiene standards (or lack thereof) and the fact that IHOP contains the word "International" fell flat. Once again, this story could have been effectively reduced to a one-liner while still conveying the same joke.

There you have it, readers. The five latest articles put out by the Rotten Appal are only slightly less unfunny than the plethora of crap that came before them, but I will hand it to them that minuscule improvements have been made. Perhaps in five years, the website may even make someone crack a smile. However, as it stands, the self-proclaimed "humor" publication is only capable of garnering the deadpan facial expression of the aforementioned law enforcement officer.

I give this week's edition 1 out of 5 chuckles and I'm being very generous due to the holidays. So, writers and staff of the Rotten Appal, what do you think? Am I full of shit? Feel free to write in a response and I will post it, unedited up here on my blog. I always welcome feedback and enjoy your critiques. Also, be sure to check in regularly for semi-daily content and share it with your friend, relatives, and former employers. Until next time!