Playing the Fool
I read that Dan was annoyed by a piss-poor attempt at an April Fools gag, and it got me thinking about what makes a good hoax, versus an unfunny waste of everyone’s time.
A lot of people (mostly American, I hasten to generalise) think that simply stating an untruth as fact is the goal. Last year, FNX (a local radio station) announced on their breakfast news that James ‘Whitey’ Bulger had been captured. This just a bare-faced lie. There was no “punchline”. There was no imagination or effort involved. Just read something out as fact, then wait for the distressed listeners to complain.
A good hoax should challenge the audience’s brain. Perhaps at first glance, if you’re reading and your brain is in neutral, you believe it. Perhaps something tickles your mind as being a bit odd, but it should be vaguely believable. But then, as you actually think about it, you realise that it couldn’t possibly be true. Spaghetti doesn’t grow on trees! Google isn’t operated by pigeons.
Most importantly, you should laugh about it once you cotton on. Yes, you feel like an idiot because you believed it originally (hey, it’s April Fools Day, not April “Boy howdy, am I smart” Day). And even if you spot it as a hoax all along, the gag should be funny.
My personal favourite is still a spoof BMW ad promising “Prescription Windscreens”, so you could drive without wearing your glasses. It’s a funny concept in itself, and so the laughter doesn’t just come from the proponent laughing at all the “suckers” who believed someone listed as fact.
(PS. A visit to the Museum of Hoaxes raises a wry old smile.)
I'm