MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar Voynar@moviecitynews.com

Will the Real Scott Adams Fan Please Stand Up?

Not really sure what to think about this whole scandal around Dilbert comic creator Scott Adams admitting that he used a fake identity as his own biggest fan to defend himself on internet discussion boards.

If you’re not up to speed on the whole mess, Gawker has a pretty good breakdown of it — though I can’t say with certainty that a story that kicks off with “Scott Adams, creator of the great comic strip Dilbert, is sort of a prick.” is setting out to be at all objective. Particularly given their 2007 piece on how Adams, who rose to fame with his comic strips about workplace buffoonery and stupid bosses, was himself a lousy boss.

Fake identities on the internet are nothing new. Last year, the real guys behind the Wise Kaplan and Cranky Kaplan Twitter feeds were unmasked (and if anything, the unmasking just made them all the more interesting), and if you regularly read the comments section of the Hot Blog, Hollywood Elsewhere, The Wrap, Thompson on Hollywood, et al, there are all kinds of folks out there commenting under pseudonyms, or at least under online “personas,” right?

I dunno, to me this just feels less like a “scandal,” and more like a “heh.” Maybe I’m just getting cynical and assuming 99.8% of people are less than completely transparent in one way or another on the internet, whether it’s on message boards, comments sections of blogs, Facebook or Twitter. What do you think? Scandal or not?

8 Responses to “Will the Real Scott Adams Fan Please Stand Up?”

  1. John says:

    I definitely chalk this one up in the “heh” category. Remember, this is the internet, where the girls are guys and the kids are FBI agents.

  2. Tim Kolar says:

    Commenting under personas is common enough and why not? If you’re a public figure then revealing your name can distract from what you’re actually saying.

    Using a persona to effusively praise yourself in public is a little different though. “Crass” comes to mind. It’s certainly beyond the bounds of good taste.

  3. Kim Voynar says:

    Mike, not arguing with you as to whether he’s a misogynistic ass … he pretty much made that case for himself with that post and his subsequent defense of it. The sad-but-true part of THAT whole story is that he probably actually does have a fairly large reader base who thought what he had to say about “men’s rights” and women generally was spot on.

    I don’t have any stats on what percentage of those men have no sexual relationship with anything other than a blow-up doll or their own hand, but I’d bet it’s fairly high.

    All I’m saying is, is it an issue for a known person to post anonymously under a pseudonym and defend himself? Obviously it’s kind of stupid, but I’m just saying, I bet it happens all the time.

  4. Stephen says:

    The misogynist rant was meant to be satire and he deleted it because it was being treated as literal.
    I don’t think he is a misogynist, but he is often purposefully abrasive in his responses.

  5. Stephen says:

    As far as anonymous posting I think its a non-issue, but agree it is a little odd to post anonymous responses that aren’t responses to arguments, but instead just telling everyone how great you are.

  6. Krillian says:

    Not a scandal.

  7. Proman says:

    This is some sort of a joke. The guy had a right to defend himself under any name he chose to use – as you can see admitting who you are on message boards will have you eaten alive. People are just ready to hate.

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Well, actually, of that whole group that I call the post-60s anti-authority auteurs, a lot of them came from television. Peckinpah’s the only one whose television work represents his feature work. I mean, like the only one. Mark Rydell can direct a really good episode of ‘Gunsmoke’ and Michael Ritchie can direct a really good episode of ‘The Big Valley,’ but they don’t necessarily look like The Candidate. But Peckinpah’s stuff, even the scripts he wrote that he didn’t even direct, have a Peckinpah feel – the way I think there’s a Corbucci West – suggest a Peckinpah West. That even in his random episodes that he wrote for ‘Gunsmoke’ – it’s right there.”
~ Quentin Tarantino

“The thought is interrupted by an odd interlude. We are speaking in the side room of Casita, a swish and fairly busy Italian bistro in Aoyama – a district of Tokyo usually so replete with celebrities that they spark minimal fuss. Kojima’s fame, however, exceeds normal limits and adoring staff have worked out who their guest is. He stops mid-sentence and points up towards the speakers, delighted. The soft jazz that had been playing discreetly across the restaurant’s dark, hardwood interior has suddenly been replaced with the theme music from some of Kojima’s hit games. Harry Gregson-Williams’ music is sublime in its context but ‘Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots’ is not, Kojima acknowledges, terribly restauranty. He pauses, adjusting a pair of large, blue-framed glasses of his own design, and returns to the way in which games have not only influenced films, but have also changed the way in which people watch them. “There are stories being told [in cinema] that my generation may find surprising but which the gamer generation doesn’t find weird at all,” he says.
~ Hideo Kojima