Musings of a mad coder

[serialnumber002]

canada lynx voted the animal of all time. Boy why are you so paws

[serialnumber002]

put those thigns away

[5149eszter]

[thatdisasterauthor]

Honestly, I kinda...hate the trope(?) of "now that these characters are together, you don't get to see their lives as intimately as you did when they were still in the early stages because it's a REAL relationship now and you, weird little voyeuristic reader/watcher, don't get to be part of that."

Like. No. I am here to enjoy their relationship! All of their relationship! Stop closing the door just because they made it official! They're fictional! They don't need privacy from the watcher/reader!

And we don't have enough media with established couples anyways! So many stories end with the solidification of the relationship and then never show us much, if anything, about once they're solid. Let us enjoy it when we do actually get those parts of the story!

[prokopetz]

Historically, one of the most reliable sources of widespread banditry was rulers ramping up military recruitment for major wars, then cutting their soldiers loose afterwards without pay, leaving a bunch of heavily armed men with military experience floating around broke and homeless.

Knowing this, whenever someone jokingly refers to raccoons as "trash bandits", I get a vivid mental image of, like, a raccoon succession crisis leading to a raccoon civil war, the aftermath of which forced the former soldiers of the losing side (who are all raccoons) to take up the life of the raccoon outlaw.

[bisexualbaker]

Oh, no! Did something happen to Little King Trashmouth and his husband Gary before they were able to adopt or hire a surrogate? 🥺

[strawberry-crocodile]

personally? i enjoy being a fan of characters who have done Wrong. i like when a character is not a perfect victim, has hurt people, has transgressed, has done bad things. sometimes its nice to feel the sting yknow? and to recognize that a character is not a flawless perfect victim, but is deserving of understanding and compassion anyway. a lot of people in fandom refuse to let go of moral absolutism and its... rough.

[strawberry-crocodile]

great now name a female character you feel this way about in the next 30 seconds or another hostage dies

[teaboot]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is an ancient movie that we’ve talked about as nauseum, yes, but if I may continue post nauseum I do still absolutely love Jessica Rabbit and how if you watch with your eyes the first time and see how she’s animated as this impossibly seductive caricature of allure and lust that is OBVIOUSLY giving off all the flirty and come-hither signals in the world, you are sympathetic to the men around her who can’t help but fall for her invitation-

but then you watch it again and close your eyes whenever she appears and just listen to her voice, you can hear the words and emotions and sadness of an average, tired woman who has accepted that no matter what she does, she’ll always just be seen for how she looks. That the way she has been animated and the way she is seen and interpreted by the world is beyond her control, and there’s not a thing she can do about it.

And suddenly the men aren’t very sympathetic at all, because you realize that while they LOOK, they haven’t at all been LISTENING.

I’m sorry I just still think that the dissonance between her animation and her VA was an incredible stroke of genius because yeah. Yeah that’s what it’s like

[gullwhacker]

Item: Your First Video Game Rarity: ⏶ Common

What was your first video game?

Feed your dashboard by answering my question, blogger.

Dark Castle. Classic Macintosh puzzle-platformer, there was a recent remake of one of its sequels. Devilishly hard and slapstick funny.

[eightyonekilograms]

How far back in time can you understand English?

An experiment in language change

Nifty little language game here.

I can read back to 1500 with basically no difficulty

at 1400 I have to read slowly and carefully, but I can understand all of it save a couple words

at 1300 I can still comprehend most of it if I read slowly, but a much larger percentage of the words are unfamiliar to me, even with context

1200 and earlier are almost totally unintelligible

[sineala]

If you thought reading this was fun, Colin Gorrie, the author of that post, is also the author of Ōsweald Bera: An Introduction to Old English, which is a textbook that uses the reading method to teach Old English. This works pretty much like reading that post. You literally just read a (very entertaining) story about a bear named Osweald, and you learn Old English along the way. A+, recommended.

[what-even-is-thiss]

Sometimes my inner English major stirs back to life and I feel the need to make a queer feminist analysis of Gaston from Disney’s beauty and the beast

[what-even-is-thiss]

A lot of the way Gaston interacts with gender is deeply performative but in the mundane way that most men don’t think about.

Near the beginning of the movie when he says to Belle “how can you read this? There’s no pictures” and throws her book in the mud that’s probably not him actually being stupid.

It’s a performative idiocy. No less performative than a woman pretending to be a ditz to flirt. It’s flirting, but it’s drastically ineffective flirting if the person you’re talking to just isn’t that into you.

Gaston does everything correctly. He’s a natural leader, he knows how to inspire both admiration and fear.

This caricature of masculinity he puts forward is a very useful tool against most people in general. He’s strong, he’s a provider, he reacts to upsetting situations with anger. It’s always gotten him his way before but it doesn’t get him his way now.

There’s this view of gender performance by some people as your ticket to getting what you want. It’s often seen as the realm of women, but Gaston is an example of the cisgender male version of this. His gun pointing and using antlers in all of his decorating isn’t any less of a coordinated dance than the trio of girls pretending to faint to get his attention.

He plays his dance perfectly, but Belle isn’t interested in participating in the way that he wants her to. Ideally from his point of view she’d also play dumb but in a womanly way and they’d both go on to play this game for the rest of their lives.

The difference between Gaston and Belle is that Belle just does what she wants. She’s not interested in playing the game of gendered stupidity. She just is the kind of woman that she is and isn’t interested in exaggerating any of that.

That, ultimately, is why Gaston fails. He does the thing that is expected of him and manipulates societal expectations as brilliantly as he ever has but that is not enough to find happiness. A show of happiness and a play at what one thinks that a perfect life ought to be is in the end no substitute for simply living how one would prefer to regardless of expectation.

[meanwhilemisha22]

How would you contrast this to the Beast?

[what-even-is-thiss]

The beast tries at this same performance of masculinity in a few different ways at a few different times but can never quite get himself to stick to it. He tries anger, locking people up, intimidation, but it never quite sticks to him.

In the end he always finds more happiness when he meets people where they are. While Gaston spends the movie trying to hold onto control, the beast spends the movie slowly learning to let go of control, to trust people that he loves and be trusted himself. He’s willing in the end to give up his last hope at regaining his humanity to make Belle happy.

His goals over time shift to wanting her to be happy and just to enjoy her and the life he has. He’s happy when he gifts her a library, he’s happy when she teaches him how to dance, sharing responsibility and expressing joy. He may not fully have the life he wants, but he’s learning to enjoy the life he has with the person he wants.

Instead of playing the gender dance and owning Belle he slowly comes to be a part of an equal partnership, or realizes that he wants to be a part of an equal partnership and that can’t be possible if he keeps her imprisoned, so he lets her go.

Gaston could not let her go and he also couldn’t let go of his masculine obligation to gain control. The beast could, and in the end he’s rewarded with both the person he wants and the life he wants, lived being a kinder and gentler man than he was before he was cursed. One who’s more willing to trust and give up full control of others.

[firawren]

I really appreciate this reading of Gaston, because I think he too often gets reduced to haha-big-dumb-guy. He's canonically not stupid. He uses big words and quotes Macbeth! He comes up with a clever plan to get Belle on the spot, and when he later implements that plan and it starts going off the rails, immediately comes up with a new plan and knows how to get everyone on his side. He's intelligent! So yeah, I can buy into the idea that the dumb masculine things he does are more for show.

One of the actors who played Gaston on Broadway said that when he thanks Belle for calling him "positively primeval" it is not because he's dumb and doesn't know what it means, it's because he knows exactly what it means but thinks it's a compliment, and I've adopted this interpretation of this exchange. It goes along perfectly with your analysis. He's trying to appear like Big Strong Primal Man and then Belle (to his mind) titters and essentially says "ooh yes you're such a Primal Man," so he's happy that it worked, thanks her, and immediately suggests they got look at his trophies (dead animals) for more evidence of how primal he is.

He also thinks Belle is playing along during his proposal, because she does. When he cages her in—which is a total bodice-ripper romance trope that you still will see in fanfic constantly because lots of women really do love that performance on masculine aggression (as is their right—I find it hot in the right context too, no kink shaming) and Gaston totally knows this—she flutters her eyelashes at him and gives him the stock Demure Lady response.

I will take issue with the idea that Beast tries to perform masculinity with his anger and intimidation. I don't think this is a performance; these are his genuine reactions and sincerely chosen behaviors. That's the real him. And the point is that the real him simply changes to not want to do these things anymore. (Though I headcanon he will still have a bit of a temper for his whole life because that's just part of his personality and no one is perfect.)

But otherwise, I agree with everything you said about Beast's arc! Yes, he does reject masculine displays as the movie goes on. Beast is given the chance to play Typical Man by Cogsworth when he suggests Beast give her "the usual things: flowers, chocolates, promises you don't intend to keep." It's not malicious, of course, but it is stereotypical. Beast rejects this idea and decides to be unconventional and give her the library.

He doesn't do the typical Tough Guy and fight back against Gaston at first—which, granted, is just because he wants to die, not because he thinks it's morally wrong. But then when he does fight back and has the chance to deliver the killing blow, he shows mercy and gentleness and lets Gaston go, again eschewing Tough Guy behavior specifically because he knows it's wrong.

Gaston, of course, does the opposite, and dies for it.

Great analysis OP! Thanks for sharing this!

[omnybus]

No-one’s swole like Gaston

No-one’s droll like Gaston

No-one adheres to old gender roles like Gaston

“I’m especially fond of the patriarchy!”

Man, what a man, that Gaston!

[superbdragoncollection-stuff]

Just to add my own two cents? The live action movie, among many, many other problems, tries to imply Gaston is the way he is because he went to one of the dozens of wars France had in the 19th century. That is ridiculous and I would argue undermines the character.

So, while it's possible, it's very unlikely that Gaston was a veteran, and more than that, it would undermine his character.

He's a dick, no PTSD was necessary to make him like this. The live action film practically says "oh it's not his fault, he was damaged by the war" when he casually says he went to war. It tries to remove culpability from him in a way that really misunderstands the character.

As the above posts have described, he is a very performative man. The live action one, among its many other flaws, means to tell me that THIS man wouldn't perform how much of a veteran he was, claiming to serve in the french foreign legion or something?!

[coal-mineoptimism]

Apologies for diverting the point but this is exactly what a lot of gender swaps miss. Gender swap Gaston wouldn’t be butch, she would perform her gender to her fullest degree because that’s who she is. The masculinity is part of his gender performance so if you make Gaston a girl she won’t continue to perform masculinity. She would do exactly what canon Gaston wanted Belle to do

[ad-wills]

[glowingghosty]

[thevioletcaptain]

[wheezecheese]

[malspinningyarns]

The Muppet Christmas Carol is now considered a holiday classic and probably one of the best of the Muppets’ filmography, but when you look at it, it is such a departure from all the previous Muppet media. It’s much darker- both in terms of tone and color palette. There’s no celebrity cameos. A human is the central character instead of one of the Muppets. There are many new Muppets instead of relying on regular Muppets for some of the roles and some the Muppets are in roles you wouldn’t expect.

A lot of this makes much more sense with the context that this is the first Muppet project after Jim Henson’s sudden death and Muppeteer Richard Hunt was incredibly sick due to complications from AIDS that he was unable to participate (he would die during production). It’s a film created by a lot of people actively in the grieving process. You can feel that grief in scenes like the ones in the Cratchit home. It also explains why certain Muppets appear and some don’t. They really only use Jim and Richard’s characters when they have to. You can’t have a Muppet movie without Kermit, so Kermit is in. Statler and Waldorf are both perfect for Jacob Marley, so they both had to be recast because they were performed by Richard and Jim (which makes the fact they are ghosts kind of sad). Beaker is one of Richard’s characters and because you can’t have Bunsen without Beaker, Beaker was recast. Of Jim’s other major characters, Dr. Teeth and Rowlf are present but silent and the Swedish Chef has a more active cameo. Of Richard’s regular characters, only Janice is present. Scooter and Sweetums are not in the film. Frank Oz was busy with other jobs, so he really only does his main four of Miss Piggy, Animal, Fozzie, and Sam the Eagle. Dave Goelz, Steve Whitmire, and Jerry Nelson did a lot of the main characters, except the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Future. Jerry Nelson did the face puppeteering and voice of the Ghost of Christmas Present. I think it speaks to Jerry Juhl’s skill as a writer that he was able to not only adapt to these casting considerations, but also write one of the most faithful adaptations of A Christmas Carol.

[comicgeekscomicgeek]

The movie also launched the absolutely spectacular duo act of Gonzo and Rizzo.

But it is definitely weird that they created new puppets/characters for the Ghosts, rather than casting existing Muppets in the role. But it’s also a move that garnered them a lot of praise. More understandable with the casting necessities though. I could certainly have very easily seen Sweetums as Present, for example.

[rockmusicplays]

Rewatching this movie as an adult knowing all of this, and knowing how hard it was for Steve Whitmire to step into the roll after Jim Henson’s death adds a whole other level of heartbreak to “Life is made up of meetings and partings. That is the way of it. We shall never forget Tiny Tim, or this first parting there was among us.”

[honoriaw]

oh

[gifsboom]

How To Wrap A Cat For Christmas.

[nox-lee]

This never gets old.

[appendingfic]

Wolvermon: EULALIA!

[tayasigerson]

Dragon's Neck Coliseum: the universal experience

[gallusrostromegalus]

Mochi was "helping" us play Draw Steel today. There's four swarms of kobolds under him. Also the party.

[wellfine]

TRAGEDY: every member of a once-flourishing group chat is now employed

[calicohyde]

i hate when ppl act like the only reason to not like a "sad" ending is because you can't take it or whatever. personally as a tragedy enjoyer, i hate a poorly written ending. i hate an ending that is just kind of a bummer. i hate an ending that feels mean-spirited to the audience. i hate an ending that's redundant. i love a sad ending that is thematically consistent, poignant, and bespoke to the rest of its narrative.

[the-fallen-blue]

#if you've got to earn a happy ending you've got to earn a sad one too

[closebutnotquitewright]

Detritus really was like, we’re completely out of our jurisdiction and facing down an army but call Cheery a slur again and we can do Koom Valley 2.0 right here right now I don’t give a fuck. King shit.

[image ID: a screenshot from The Fifth Elephant

Cheery dropped down from the coach. Her leather skirt flapped in the wind.

As one dwarf, the column swiveled to stare at her. Their leader went pop-eyed. “B’dan? K’raa! D’kraga ‘ha’ak’!”

Vimes saw the expression that appeared on Cheery’s small round face.

Above him there was a clunk as Detritus rested the loaded Piecemaker on the edge of the coach.

“I know dat word he said to her,” he announced to the world. “It is not a good word. I do not want to hear dat word again.”

/End ID]

[vaspider]

I love Detritus so much.

[siphersaysstuff]

I feel there's a bit of context needed here for those unfamiliar with the Discworld, so I shall provide, because I love these books.

In the Discworld series, "All dwarfs have beards and wear many layers of clothing. Their courtships are largely concerned with finding out, in delicate and circumspect ways, what sex the other dwarf is."

“It wasn't that dwarfs weren't interested in sex. They saw the vital need for fresh dwarfs to leave their goods to and continue the mining work after they had gone. It was simply that they also saw no point in distinguishing between the sexes anywhere but in private. There was no such thing as a Dwarfish female pronoun or, once the children were on solids, any such thing as women's work.”

This has changed over the course of the books, with our main example being Cheery Littlebottom, one of many dwarfs to come to the big stinking city of Ankh-Morpork and saw the dresses and makeup and etc and thought "why not me?" She still has the beard, her skirts are nigh-impenetrable leather and the heels on her boots are solid iron, but her presentation and even being referred to as "her" is something very much not approved of by much of dwarf society and especially those in power... and the dwarfs in the quote above are part of the guard for those very dwarfs in power.

Here's Cheery in the bottom-left corner.

Upper-right corner? That's Detritus, a troll. Historically, dwarfs and trolls have been at war with each other basically forever because dwarfs break apart rocks to get at the valuable minerals inside... and trolls ARE rocks with valuable minerals inside, and it just kinda kept going for generation after generation. Koom Valley, mentioned above, is a big huge Thing in both species' history, THE biggest dwarf/troll fight, where apparently both sides ambushed each other and both sides lost, and it's been used to propagate the feud by both sides forever. (It's the focus of the book this quote comes from.)

Detritus became a member of the City Watch alongside another dwarf as part of a diversity initiative. It did not go well at all to start. But over the course of a few short days, where the two end up saving each other's lives (and both nearly getting their heads caved in by members of their own species), Detritus very quickly gets a change of mind over his prejudices (sadly, the dwarf, Cuddy, does not survive the book, and his death has a PROFOUND impact on Detritus).

The Piecemaker is Detritus' favored weapon... a freaking cart-drawn siege bow he modified to be hand-held.

This art is from BEFORE he modified it to fire a bundle of siege arrows (because reloading takes too long) at a significant enough fraction of the speed of light (granted light is slower on the Disc but still) to the point where he basically unleashes a giant flaming cloud of wood shrapnel that won't just take the front door out, but a large chunk of the back wall too and likely something out of whatever's behind that to boot.

“'What did I tell you about Mister Safety Catch?' said Vimes weakly. 'When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend,' recited Detritus, saluting.”

So yeah. Detritus is REALLY ready to start an international fucking incident, in a VERY big and splash-damagey way, over someone using a slur at Cheery, a member of a group history has told him to hate.

And good on him.