Thursday, February 24, 2011

brief thoughts on terrifying cartoons

I was very scared of Who Framed Roger Rabbit as a child.  I haven't seen it since.  But I remember something really horrific with acid and/or shoes.  Which, oHMYSTARs, might account for why I'm not wild about shoes.  Wow.  Breakthroughs.  On the internet.  It happens.  It can be a personal Oprah.
But Roger Rabbit was also one peculiar rabbit and creeped me out slightly if I recall.  He was really deranged-seeming and maybe had a lisp or something?  I can't even bring myself to get video of it for fear of the nightmares.

Another fearful experience?  Donald Duck in, what I have come to learn, is Mathmagic Land.

AND OH MY GOD.  Maybe that's why math and I do not agree.  Internet.  You should get a book deal.  But - this movie had some pretty great stuff in it - so I did watch it a lot.  But there is a scary pencil that reminds me of a bird or a bug.  And I remember Donald having some weird freak out, too...Math is a dark place.  But also I'm pretty sure this movie was stuffed full of neat crud.  I remember him playing pool.  And things with shapes.  This brings me back to my C- in Math Patterns in Nature class.  Yes, indeed, math patterns in nature.  I still have a below average grasp of what exactly that means.

A slightly more strange one is the creepy as butts flowers from Alice in Wonderland.
They just have mean, weird faces.  And I think they all sing together.  And I remember there were also some nasty flowers who I want to say were doing something like pinching her.  But maybe not.  That seems nuts.  Flowers can't pinch.  But they sure can sing!
In any event, any plant coming to life is sure as bells going to be scary.  Just imagine if a field of grass came to life.  I mean, they're not gonna hurt you or anything, on account of being stuck to the ground - but still - millions and billions of tiny green armless creeps...that would probably be pretty foul.  

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The Troublefuss with Lady Bundles, Part 2

The second, in a series.  Have a whale of a time.

Sunday, February 13, 2011


Technical problems delay the release of The Troublefuss with Lady Bundles, Part 2.  Until then - enjoy this special edition of

This monkey is CRAZY CUTE OH MY STARS!

that is all.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

clearly candianly

I apologize dearly and Clearly Canadian.

Remember Clearly Candian?  I do.  On account of drinking loads of it once upon a time.

I've been traveling.  And tomorrow will offer you my expert advice in the form of travel tips.  Until then - I briefly discuss the following portion of a sentence I read that was part of a larger piece of writing -

"a man who (reluctantly) ate his own cousin"

Why in the blue blazes do they need to mention it was reluctantly?  And stuffed inside of parentheses, no less.  That's crazy for a possibly a couple of reasons.  


OBVIOUSLY the man didn't want to eat his cousin.  And that man might read that sentence and be offended thinking people might read that he ate his cousin and think it was because he wanted to.  That the man did it willingly and happily but the wise and sophisticated writer would not and passes judgment in a snooty parenthetical.  There are many valid reasons for the man to take offense.  

Maybe he thinks he OBVIOUSLY wouldn't want to eat his cousin because he's gross and gamey.  And maybe his cousin wasn't the slightest bit tasty-looking.  All fat and no muscle.  Maybe his cousin was a schlubby chubbo from uggo town.  A man he wouldn't have ever eaten, even if you paid him.  Think of the most unpleasant person you know.  Now imagine someone has told everyone you ate him.  OBVIOUSLY that would be repugnant - I mean, you wouldn't want to eat some hunchback pig with a tumor on its stomach that has its own teeth and hair.  And you OBVIOUSLY wouldn't want people to think you would do such a thing.    You would want a parenthetical that accurately describes the great desperation you were in to do such a  thing.  You wouldn't want some dumb parenthetical that might lead people to assume the worst about you.


It is clearly Canadianly unnecessary to mention someone's reluctance towards eating people.  Especially cousins.  It is simply assumed and known as a fact.


We shouldn't make funnies about cannibalism.  Unless it is in an Alvin and the Chipmunks movie in which the 'munks race around the world unknowingly smuggling diamonds and crud.  And also unless it involves a musical number.
But.  Wait.  I guess the tribal humans were really eating giant chipmunks so it doesn't count as cannibalism.  Except.  Well.  They probably usually sacrificed people, when not having access to giant juicy chipmunks who need glasses and other human-like accoutrement.  So, it does count.  It.  Counts.