🍬Candy 💖Hearts & 📃Paper 🌼Flowers

Hello hello! I'm Mason! I follow from oingo-fucker

[the-meme-monarch]

I wanted to try for a more modern take on their designs but instead they just look like a childrens show reboot

[the-meme-monarch]

uhhh more of this bc i was thinking about it ACTUALLY being a children’s show reboot and it became fun to do!! a few of these characters were redesigned for simplicity sake. the penny dolls, however, are just because their movie counterparts are. terrible looking. I made them look more like they did from the original books. also @newkelpcity for the beesechurger doodle!!

[thattwitchyartist24-blog]

Raggedy Andy says vaccinate your kids

[nogirlstoy]

Hey if you ship incest then fuck off this blog ain't for you

[nogirlstoy]

[arthur-morgan-is-trans]

Two raggedies for anon. Send me icon requests!

[vaspider]

[batz]

Why do you throw shade at people who ship Ann and Andy in the context of them not being siblings? I don't know if you didn't read into my reasoning or if you're being willfully ignorant but relax; things that other people like won't hurt you, I promise! Also I never said I explicitly disliked you because you're an 'anti'; you don't make bad content you just dislike me I guess? Don't sweat it if you want we could get a beer or soda and forget it happened I'm free after Wednesday

i ‘throw shade’ at yall because you are still shipping two siblings, even if you headcanon them as not being related its still really weird and kinda nasty. it’s like shipping dipper and mabel from gravity falls but saying you ‘headcanon them as not related so its okay’. like no matter what its still really weird and really gross.

even arguing that ‘they aren’t canon siblings’ is BS too, because in raggedy andy stories, while they aren’t called siblings, it explicity says they were created by 'the same mama’. thats from the excerpt of the 1930s copy i have atm so, id take that as canon.

also, the cartoons that were created in the 40s depicting them as being 'together’ weren’t created by johnny gruelle, since he was too busy being dead and stuff. they were created by randos at fleischer studios that had nothing to do with the books, or even Volland itself. i believe worth gruelle or justin gruelle helped worked on it, im unsure, however its still not something johnny gruelle worked on.

the book introducing raggedy andy to the canon breifly states that the dolls are related, both created/'given life’ from the same person. thats the story johnny gruelle gave them. and then, from the 1977 movie, to the 1984-86 broadway musical, to the 90s cartoon, and even recent merch theyre explicitly brother and sister.

and shipping a brother and sister, even if you decide they aren’t siblings, is just Really Really gross because they are Still Siblings. its really easy to just. not ship them. and not produce weird gross fanart of them. there are plenty of characters that exist in the books, so its not like you have to ship the siblings.

im not being willfully ignorant, if anything you and the other incest shippers are the ones refusing to think of them as siblings so you can ship Boy and Girl together. and draw weird nsfw art of them or w/e. going to lengths to make sure in your headcanon they arent siblings so that you can ship them. like. even in that context its weird, man. just ship ann with babette or smthn, they have more romantic chemistry than ann does with her brother jksdjdk

and theres literally no reason to be patronizing. im just saying that seeing a brother and sister as boyfriend and girlfriend is very gross and super weird, and that yall shouldn’t think that’s normal. that’s all.

[hailieeeeee-deactivated20240909]

Dear Frank,

 I know it’s easier to condescend and encourage “otherness” than it is to be accepting of differing ideas, but I invite you to actually listen to me:

 Dipper and Mabel were created recently for one show (one type of media), with one plot, written by one party of writers, headed by one person, with one officially distributed release. Raggedy Ann has had many adaptations and exists in many mediums. This isn’t a good comparison because of that fact, and because you acknowledge later on that there is an adaptation and some parts of the books show Ann and Andy as non-siblings, but there is no comparable published and distributed content in existence for Gravity Falls.  They’re not the similar enough entities to use for this argument, except for obvious the “sibling” comparison.

 You’re picking and choosing where you get your Raggedy Ann canon from, but so am I, so this wouldn’t matter to me if you weren’t being openly antagonistic towards people doing it the way I’m doing it AND hypocritical at the same time, but you are, so here we go.

You seem to be saying a a creation (40′s film) that supports my headcanon is not valid because it didn’t involve Johnny himself, but you are deciding to take a little bit of your idea of canon from the 1977 film, which ALSO did not involve Johnny himself and instead was written by people not even related to him and whom never got to consult him directly.

Richard Williams and whatever other hands the script passed fabricated what they wanted for RAA:AMA to suite their vision, including a few new characters, and in a few cases completely changed existing characters ( the twin penny dolls were once small and looked much different, remember?), but somehow you say that film has more canon just for being more recent. How is that more recent film any better than something that was at LEAST co-written by an ACTUAL RELATIVE of Johnny? Either argument could be valid depending on who you are and what you think is more important: being more recent or being closer to the man himself.

Trying to police a true canon for Raggedy Ann and Andy is about as futile as trying to police a true canon for Little Red Riding Hood or the story of Dracula because though these stories do indeed have original versions, they have been retold and adapted by different creators so any times that a fan of either must now decide what book/movie/comic they like best and roll with that book/movie/comic’s canon.  Everyone either picks a version already out there or comes up with their very own headcanons, and to shame someone for either option seems nonsensical. 

So let’s look at what we’re both doing here: 

Your idea of “canon” is created from these selective pieces of evidence (from what you’ve just told me):

   1. some of the older book material:  sometimes Gruelle did explicitly say they were siblings. 

2. The musical: they mention being siblings

3 The 90′s cartoon: never watched, but I assume they mention being siblings

4. the 1977 film: they introduce themselves as, and refer to each other as, siblings around others .

You use the 1977 film to support the “yes, they are siblings” concept, but also somehow think that that Ann and Babette have chemistry, when in the film Babette seems to not care much for Ann when meeting her, and canonically (in the film) ends up in a mutual heterosexual relationship with the Captain. I don’t like the fact she ended up with him ( because he literally kidnapped her and they have nothing cute or loving between them in my eyes), but if you want to use part of the film (Ann and Andy saying they’re siblings) to support yourself on one headcanon, but ignore a key part of it (Babette willingly reciprocating a dude’s love) to support another, your argument no longer makes sense. 

Babette, if RAA:AMA is where you want to grab your canon from, cannot just be gay (though she could be bi still) unless you do exactly what I’m doing to support my that theory Ann and Andy aren’t really siblings: use selective evidence and create headcanons with it.

You could say something like “Well maybe Babette’s just humoring the Captain but she really likes Ann on the side, or ends up with her later”, but it’s exactly the same kind of stretch I’m doing where I say “Maybe Ann and Andy are just pretending to be siblings around others to maintain their privacy/ keep an innocent aesthetic going for children” 

You keep insisting I ship incest even though I only ship Ann and Andy  with a headcanon where they aren’t siblings (me ignoring your idea of  “canon”), but by your own logic you’re ignoring  your own idea of canon by thinking Babette and Ann like each other romantically even though Babette reciprocates the Captain’s affection at the end. Do Ann and Babette love each other before or after Babette tries to run away to Paris, or before or after changing her mind about going to Paris , but still CHOOSING to love the Captain? You can work around this however you like and it doesn’t really matter in a normal situation, but you’re calling out other people for stretching facts to make a different ship work.

You say I’m finding “an excuse to ship Boy and Girl together”, which- ignoring the fact that it’s implicitly belittling towards at least two entire sexualities as though boy and girl couples are bad or something- is exactly the logic stretch you’re doing with Ann and Babette here,  except you’re finding “an excuse to ship Girl and Girl together” . Once again, I wouldn’t normally care that you ship them, but you’re belittling others AND being really hypocritical in the process.  You literally ship two characters from this fandom in the context of attacking people for shipping something else, despite the fact that BOTH ships are refutable by evidence in the movie’s plot. 

My idea of “canon” is created from these selective pieces of evidence, no more or less valid than what you chose for yours: 

1.  Like you, I went by some of the older book material:  in Raggedy Andy Stories from the Gutenberg archives, a letter cited at the beginning of the book from Johnny’s MOTHER to Johnny (recall that supposedly Ann was made not by Johnny, but originally for his mom by her own mom) claims the original Andy was made by her neighbor’s mother and belonged to here neighbor originally, so if your definition of siblings for dolls is being made by the same person or cut from the same cloth, they wouldn’t be siblings in that case. (Side note: this letter is really cool and it shows how the children did whatever the hell they wanted with the toys including just being like “hey Andy is a girl right now because I said so”. It’s so cute)

I  also noticed from reading some of the the other books that Johnny constantly changes his own canon rules from book to book, such as ‘sometimes they can’t eat because OF COURSE they’re dolls, but now they can eat, but now they can’t’  So even though I can find parts from the books that support either side of the sibling/not sibling argument, whether he says they are or not in one book is arguably no more valid to hold onto than any of the other rules that he continuously introduced and discredited later on.  At that point it’s just whatever makes you happy to roll with. Since a letter at the very beginning of the first book With Andy says he was made by a neighbor, it’s as easy as liking that idea more than liking the idea they were somehow both made by Johnny’s grandma. Johnny obfuscated his own lore (he was certainly a lover of absurdity), even around the origin of the dolls, according to Patricia Hall, someone who’s seemingly gone out of their way to document Raggedy Ann’s history as thoroughly as possible.  2. The 1941 film, which was  in fact co-written by  Worth Gruelle,  one of Johnny’s sons, and to me that’s a validating fact, but to others it doesn’t matter. I don’t care either way, because the film is there,  I like it, and I choose to give the involvement of an actual relative of Johnny Gruelle’s involvement significance for myself.

3.  The way the two characters interact in the 1977 film is far too intimate for me to be comfortable with the idea of them being siblings or somehow not a couple. I’ve personally only experienced that degree of physical and emotional intensity with my significant other, and romance in many other movies is shown as being exactly how Ann and Andy act in the “Candy Hearts and Paper Flowers” scene.  If they’re really siblings somehow, and that scene is also “canon”, then seeing them touch each other that way for that long makes me grossed out personally; Once again, I do not shame people for believing differently than me, but my experiences hold me back from being able to be ok with them being siblings. 

4. It’s very difficult to objectively define what would make dolls “related” if they were sentient.  If you take a scientific route, they would need genetic material to be able to be related. Any other direction requires you, by its very nature, to fabricate  a completely arbitrary definition of what it means to be “siblings”, and it can only get more convoluted and slippery of a slope from that point on. 

 Neither of  us can successfully claim that the “canon”we want to believe is more “correct” because we’re both doing the same damn thing, just on different ends of the spectrum. I KNOW what I’m doing is selective, but I’m not trying to attack anyone for being selective in a different way than myself, whereas you are.

That is the ONLY reason any of this bothers me: It’s difficult-to impossible-for a person to figure out one “true” canon for Raggedy Ann with one set of rules- or even one set of characters- without having to pick and choose “Hmm, which one of these will be my Raggedy Fandom God today: this book Johnny wrote, this letter Johnny cited IN his book,  this part of this movie, this older animated short, this one other book he wrote later, or this book someone else wrote? Hmm, some of them really contradict each other and even themselves, but ya know, I guess I’ll just pick what makes me happy ”, and so knowing that, it seems unnecessary to be so rude to anyone who picks different bits to build headcanons on than you.

 I don’t think I’m any more “weird” or “gross” for thinking Ann and Andy are a couple pretending to siblings  than you are for deciding it’s okay to alienate other people and their art  as“weird” and “gross” despite seemingly marketing yourself as an open-minded and accepting person,  for calling me out (a person who genuinely never did anything to you) just for reblogging something I thought was funny from you, or for ignoring a canon outcome in a film you’re citing as evidence in your attempt to validate the unnecessary negativity you’ve decided to send towards me, and any others like me, in this tiny fandom. Everyone can (and will, of course) ship and headcanon what they want in general, but in a broken-up, 100-year-old+ fandom packed with inherent inconsistencies, I believe this even more so.    Johnny took an old doll and made her into something no one ever could have imagined. Raggedy Ann and Andy have comforted and given joy to children and adults alike over many generations, including ours. The cool thing about toys is that toys are vessels of the imagination, especially Ann and Andy because of their age and sheer extent.They’ve been whatever anyone has wanted them to be for a long time, and whether you like it or not, both you and I are going to continue to interpret these characters differently in our two very different imaginations, however we see fit. I don’t think it’s a bad thing; I think it’s a wonderful thing.  A person liking something doesn’t hurt anyone, but ostracizing them for liking something does.   It’s really easy to just.  Not do that. 

Thanks,

~Hailey

[batz]

(art by haileymakes, for context)

[nogirlstoy]

ah jeez, I suppose I should start posting on this blog again, huh?

[0hn01md34d-deactivated20221125]

dollies

[skyll-kid-deactivated20200215]

No Girls Toy~

[cluelesslittlerabbit-deactivate]

I’m a giant child just…not one the modern era so it seems ^^;

This is purely for my own enjoyment

[nogirlstoy]

this isn't funny

[nogirlstoy]

this is what true, genuine fear looks like

[xxsaturninexx-deactivated202006]

@nogirlstoy see u in few days bitch >:(

[nogirlstoy]

hope ur fuckin ready bitch 3:<

[nogirlstoy]

[batz]

hi my names frank i like spongebob, lps, raggedy ann, drawing and crying… lost followers for loving cartoons on main so im promo-ing…need new followers…new Mutuals…

about / important

[nogirlstoy]

Hi I'm raggedy Andy and I AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA