Hacker News Reader

Comment by teddyh | Hacker News Reader

I’ve never liked the BOFH stories, even when I first encountered them in the early 90s I never thought they were particularly funny, and as I’ve since become a more experienced sysadmin I’ve actually come to despise them and the attitude they symbolize. Sure, the stories are parodies and written in an exaggerated manner, but the underlying humor seems to be saying “Isn’t this what we all really think? Isn’t this how we would all wish we could behave?”, which is an attitude I find deplorable.

I’ve elaborated about this here in the past, first here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10320829#10322378

and later here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16724962#16725937

(Note: this entire comment is a repost from four years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164086)

View on HN

I agree there's a power fantasy element to them, but they're a reflection of sysadmins' lack of real power. They're at the bottom of the pecking order and are only noticed when things go wrong, or when users want to project their own frustrations onto somebody lower in the office pecking order. They have incredible destructive potential at their fingertips yet no way to use it in the protection of their own dignity, since doing their job well means taking abuse silently when it's directed at them. Pushing back against misdirected blame and anger would go against the real power structure and would be castigated as a lack of empathy for the poor users.

Honestly, the best sysadmins are probably the ones who resort to fantasies like this. Real unscrupulous sysadmins can force people to kiss their ass before they'll do their job. If you've ever worked in an office where the sysadmin is a highly visible and highly respected person, and everyone is keen to treat them well and be on their good side, it's because they've made it their policy to do the simplest aspects of their job grudgingly, theatrically, and only after a lot of cajoling. Meanwhile at another company there's somebody doing the same job ten times better but getting treated like an intern precisely because they do the job better, without forcing people to beg. And that sysadmin is the one who needs the power fantasy.

(I was not sure whether to use the present tense or past tense in this post. My memories of company sysadmins are from the 1990s and early 2000s, and I have no idea if sysadmins like that exist anymore.)

I feel that a real “power fantasy” would be to depict a fight against the ignominy, not in petty acts of malice against the undeserving.

Well, there's something to be said for lightening up, and unless assaulted, we choose to be offended. I suppose, similarly, most really can't stand Jerry nor find his behavior humorous; he's such a jerk to Tom.

The art of parody can be low or high brow. I suppose there is some low brow parody I do not appreciate (e.g. Jim Carrey's Fire Marshal Bill Burns I find disturbing), but BOFH hits too close to home for me to criticize (beyond literary). Some users can be demanding, needy, ungrateful pieces of work, and fantasizing about retaliation without consequences relieves pressure.

Contrast BOFH to dissident heating engineer Harry Tuttle, not opposites, but somewhat complimentary. BOFH is probably more believable, but Harry wins the absurdity contest. Also compare both to Dr. Gregory House and the characters on Seinfeld. I will not explain why we sometimes like horrible people, but I think it is intersting that Tuttle stands out conspicuously gallant and heroic among them.

We even like antiheroes in work that is not parody, such as Clint Eastwood's unnamed characters, Han Solo, Michael Corleone and Rambo. There are other crossovers like BOFH, such as Captain Jack Sparrow, a character that is similarly both a parody and an antihero, or Alex DeLarge, a satiric antihero. Also notable is Mr. Robot's Elliot Alderson, perhaps a closely-related descendent of BOFH.

My psychological intuition tells me that the one with power phantasies is the cajoling sysadmin - not the humble one. I find it weird that you would think it's the other way around.

I would think it would be weird to fantasize about taking drastic, socially unsanctioned action to deal with circumstances that you are already dealing with effectively in real life.

People do commonly fantasize about using violence to escape humiliating situations, but very few people take violent action against their tormentors, so it stands to reason that most of the people who fantasize about violence aren't violent in real life.

somebody resorting to cajoling is maybe acting "effectively" but certainly not "efficiently" with regard to personal menal hygiene and most likely suffers from that behaviour. also I'd suspect a source for this behaviour which might well be engaging in rage phantasies about how to respond to perceived injustice and disrespect by peers.

> Sure, the stories are parodies and written in an exaggerated manner, but the underlying humor seems to be saying “Isn’t this what we all really think? Isn’t this how we would all wish we could behave?”, which is an attitude I find deplorable.

No? Not everyone sees all types of humorous behavior as something to aspire to. Did people always look at Chaplin's antics as the fool and think "that's funny, I should act the same way"? Do people look at asshole comedians because that's how they wish they were?

I think it's more accurate to say that people find extreme behavior funny because we have urges sometimes to act the same, and while we recognize that's not a good way to act, it can be cathartic to see someone unrestrained by social norms in a fictional setting where nobody is actually hurt or upset.

I'll be the first to condemn someone for harmful behaviors to others without cause, but fiction is another thing entirely. Even if I didn't find this type of fiction humorous, I would be very careful not to ascribe motivations and idea about those that do. People have many reasons for enjoying stories, and they may be entirely alien to your own way of thinking, so generally I find it's best to deal with the individual (if needed) and not the source.

> I think it's more accurate to say that people find extreme behavior funny because we have urges sometimes to act the same, and while we recognize that's not a good way to act, it can be cathartic to see someone unrestrained by social norms in a fictional setting where nobody is actually hurt or upset.

This is exactly the attitude which I called “deplorable”. I dont’t feel that urge, as I explained in my linked comments.

>> I’ve actually come to despise them and the attitude they symbolize.

The issue is, they don't necessarily symbolize an attitude. That's an assumption on your part, and in my opinion, and erroneous one. These stories let people see urges they have played out in a fictional setting, and explore how it might play out. This can relieve the pressure people might feel to actually act in these ways, because they get some outlet, while also seeing how the behavior is problematic in real life.

It's fine that you don't like this fiction, but when you start projecting your own interpretations of what the fiction means or symbolizes, you are projecting your own interpretation and judgement onto others who may consume that fiction in an entirely different way. It doesn't symbolize what you say it does, it at most makes you feel something about it. To others it makes them feel something different. In neither case does it necessarily make someone act or think more in line with how the main character does.

We can ask people to act a certain way within society, but once we start demonizing urges people may have and not act on, and fiction that appeals to those people, I think we've gone too far.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see this kind of sentiment at the top. I also like the posts you linked a lot. I used to like these kinds of bitter sysadmin revenge fantasies, but I no longer really get the appeal; they seem to exemplify a kind of "punching down or sideways because you can't punch up" behavior that I see IRL (outside IT) too often to find it funny.

> the underlying humor seems to be saying “Isn’t this what we all really think? Isn’t this how we would all wish we could behave?”

That's a bad take, for the simple reason that the BOFH series was written by a Kiwi, for primarily NZ and UK audiences.

The underlying message is, consequently, quite the opposite.

Other people in this thread have stated otherwise.

This sounds almost like "first they kill monsters in that new 'Doom' thing on a computer and then they go out and shoot people on the street!"

There's a difference between humorous escapist fantasy and the reality, and most adults are capable of recognizing it. We can watch "John Wick" without starting to shoot people, and we can read BOFH without being forced to act it out too. And as all escapist fantasy, there's an element of reality and its frustrations baked into it - that's why it works - but everybody knows it's not the reality itself.

I'm totally onboard with this, reality is a different thing altogether. BOFH is good entertainment with a touch of reality.

The world would be a poorer place if we did not have BOFH.

Think of it as some sort of elaborate Dilbert, rather. The essence of it is the dysfunction of corporate office life.

Even Dilbert wasn’t usually mean, and certainly never to people who didn’t really deserve it.

You sure you've been reading the same strip because the PHB and Dogbert have both been deliberately mean on multiple occasions.

EDIT: Also catbert whose whole character is about being cruel.

The PHB isn’t a viewpoint character. And Dogbert is usually only mean to people who can said to be (in some sense) deserving.

Dilbert himself: no. Most of the other characters: yes (mostly to Dilbert).

I can't stop reading them because they so accurately depict the attitude and MO of a few real life BOFH that I used to work with. These guys, one in particular, would do anything in his power to torture people while averting any blame due to his technical skills. And then openly laugh and make fun of them with the other sysadmins...who all pretty much allowed him to get away with it all or even encouraged it. These stories do not look like fiction to me in any way.

The moral of the story is, for all of them: "This is why AWS ate corporate IT"

Seconding this. I didn't manage to get through one before it seemed absurd, beyond unethical and unprofessional, and petty. Reminded me of Comic Book Guy: so smart but no one can stand their misanthropy.

The unfunny, mean frame around hacking things in unexpected ways probably seemed like a decent literary device, but turned out not to be.

But by then the series was a series, and like a bad Sunday-paper comic strip back when, just kept going. This seems to be a failure mode peculiar to syndication.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com