3 ms·
> Dastardly as all this sounds, it is actually pretty efficient, given the inevitability of the MacLeod hierarchy and life cycle. I suppose there are different
by jancsika 6y ago
> Dastardly as all this sounds, it is actually pretty efficient, given the inevitability of the MacLeod hierarchy and life cycle.
I suppose there are different prospective models depending on which seasons of the show you focus on. This take seems directly disputed in whatever season showed the sociopaths unable to figure out how Michael's branch could possibly be profitable. That plot arc offers a more scathing critique than the author's model lets on.
In fact, it reminds me a lot like Linus' critique of svn-- the idea of a design that is so perfectly antithetical to any of its stated goals that someone could blindly design a better alternative by merely asking at every turn, "What would svn not do?"
The Office seems to take the company (and any triangle it seems to fit) as similarly perfectly flawed. Consequently, Michael's chronic/comic incompetency reverses a critical mass of the company's strategies for the branch to succeed.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y agoSeeing as it's called the "Gervais Principle," I'm 100% positive this was written primarily for David Breen and not Michael Scott. Which I'd highly recommend watching the british office to get an understanding of what is so different. The american office is like the the big bang theory and the british office is like silicon valley.
- jancsika 6y agoYou might want to ratchet down that percentage for your future speculation: > I’ll be basing this entire article on the American version of the show, which is more fully developed than the original British version, though the original is perhaps more satisfyingly bleak.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y agoBut! Had I been right, it's clear which is the better version ;)
- yellowstuff 6y agocvs, not svn.