Jack of Birds

So this is where I talk about stuff I guess.

[mask131]

It is truly a strange thing to be much more of a fan of "Alice through the Looking-Glass" than "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", and to live in this modern day landscape where the "Wonderland" part dominates and crushes everything... It is tough sometimes for us Looking-Glass fans. Very tough.

[themousefromfantasyland]

One thing that always stayed with me is how the ending Through the Looking Glass is more existential than anything you would expect from an Alice book

"Now, Kitty, let's consider who it was that dreamed it all. This is a serious question, my dear, and you should not go on licking your paw like that——as if Dinah hadn't washed you this morning! You see, Kitty, it must have been either me or the Red King. He was part of my dream, of course——but then I was part of his dream, too! Was it the Red King, Kitty? You were his wife, my dear, so you ought to know——Oh, Kitty, do help to settle it! I'm sure your paw can wait!" But the provoking kitten only began on the other paw, and pretended it hadn't heard the question.

Which do you think it was?

[mask131]

If you ask me I never saw it as very "existential" but as more whimsical, a cute little joke-question to ask at the end, typical of Alice's weird rhetorics...

However the topic of who had the dream is even more interesting when you know that the "game of chess" ends up precisely between Alice and the Red King... Because by Alice seizing the Red Queen, she puts the Red King in checkmate, which somehow "bursts the dream" and makes her return to reality... It is very possible that, if you take the chess logic behind the story, Alice actually ended up "waking up the Red King"... But at the same time, it is implied that it is Alice herself who sets up the game as it is, when she picks up the sentient pieces in the "mirror-house"...

(Also, for those of you that always wanted more visual guiding to the chess-game-hidden-in-the-text, beyond that one annotated page you find at the beginning of every "Through the Looking Glass" book, here is a nice blog article that includes pictures of how the pieces move across the board during the events:

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: The Chess Game

Move-by-Move, Lewis Carroll's chess narrative explained.

[penguinofspades]

The "which dreamed it" ending of Through the Looking-Glass is very interesting, and very surprisingly existential for people who don't expect it (which let's be honest is most people since I assume most know of Alice through pop culture and the 1951 Disney movie). I've seen . It's also an interesting parallel with Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, which also ends with a character reflecting on a dream: in that case, Alice's sister reflecting on Alice's dream of Wonderland.

I also find it interesting how Through the Looking-Glass is more solemn than Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (just compare "All in the Golden Afternoon" to "Child of the Pure Unclouded Brow" or "A Boat Beneath a Sunny Sky"), and in turn The Hunting of the Snark, which was made after Looking-Glass, is the darkest of all and the only one without a happy ending.

[mask131]

It is truly a strange thing to be much more of a fan of "Alice through the Looking-Glass" than "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", and to live in this modern day landscape where the "Wonderland" part dominates and crushes everything... It is tough sometimes for us Looking-Glass fans. Very tough.

[themousefromfantasyland]

One thing that always stayed with me is how the ending Through the Looking Glass is more existential than anything you would expect from an Alice book

"Now, Kitty, let's consider who it was that dreamed it all. This is a serious question, my dear, and you should not go on licking your paw like that——as if Dinah hadn't washed you this morning! You see, Kitty, it must have been either me or the Red King. He was part of my dream, of course——but then I was part of his dream, too! Was it the Red King, Kitty? You were his wife, my dear, so you ought to know——Oh, Kitty, do help to settle it! I'm sure your paw can wait!" But the provoking kitten only began on the other paw, and pretended it hadn't heard the question.

Which do you think it was?

[penguinofspades]

"Through the Looking-Glass" is definitely VERY underrated and overlooked, which is such a shame because there's definitely cool stuff in "Through the Looking-Glass" (like the surprisingly existential ending brought up, or the entirety of the surreal "Wool and Water" chapter). I'd go as far as to say that if you've only read "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and not the other one, you're missing out.

There's also something to be said about how things originally from the Looking-Glass World tend to be included in adaptations and reimaginings of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" (I.E. Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the Jabberwock, the Talking Flowers, the Red Queen and the White Queen).

[adarkrainbow]

I recently noticed that, when it comes to the witch in "Hansel and Gretel", there's a motif that keeps imposing itself that somehow her taste for children started out of her devouring her own kids?

The most recent case is, obviously, the "Gretel and Hansel" movie where her own children are the first she ever devoured...

And more kid-friendly, as a joke, though still as disturbing, you had before the Baker from "A Tale Dark and Grimm" who discovered she enjoyed eating kids after looking at her baby and thinking it looked yummy...

Enjoyers of the old Internet will recall the dread of the witch in "No Rest for the Wicked" - with the twist that "Hansel and Gretel" were the name of her ORIGINAL children...

[Damn, I had the page I wanted to share here but I deleted it - and now the original website is broken? Well only our memories can help us go forward...]

Even in France we had this as in Benjamin Lacombe's Grimoire de Sorcières the gingerbread-house witch, Gretchen, is said to have unlocked her powers when eating the corpse of her own son out of starvation and madness...

And Fables also did this, as in the backstory for Frau Totenkinder we learn the very first of her ritualistic sacrifices were her newborn twins (twisting the Rapunzel-motif too, given she is also Rapunzel's "gothel" in the Fables-verse)

[penguinofspades]

Interesting! I wonder if this common motif of the Witch consuming her own children stems from Hansel and Gretel and similar tales originating from famines where parents would either abandon their children or even kill and eat them. Maybe it's meant to parallel Hansel and Gretel's parents (particularly the Mother/Stepmother), who have also been shown to be willing to put their children in harm's way for their own survival?

[penguinofspades]

I'm tempted to go on a ramble over-analysis thingy about Flappers the Super Dolphin from Gameoverse, since I find him pretty cute.

[penguinofspades]

So, funny thing...

(Warning: Spoilers for Gameoverse 2026 Pilot)

Post by @penguinofspades · 4 images

💬 0  🔁 0  ❤️ 4 · So I'm gonna ramble about Flappers the Super Dolphin, because he's interesting in my opinion. Yes, I'm seriously gonna be

[penguinofspades]

So I'm gonna ramble about Flappers the Super Dolphin, because he's interesting in my opinion.

Yes, I'm seriously gonna be talking about this guy.

Warning: Spoilers for Gameoverse 2026's Pilot below. It's highly recommended you watch that before reading this rambling.

So I was watching the 2009 Gameoverse to see what it looked like. And one interesting thing I noticed about it is that in both that and the 2026 pilot Flappers ends up trusting someone and viewing them as a friend even when they aren't what they claim to be. In the 2009 series, it's Gobbles claiming to be more dangerous and badass than he really was (more specifically, he claimed to be a "Super Ultra Mega Death Bringing Guns N Lasersaurus Rex") while in the pilot it's Fold pretending to be a helpful talking map. A major difference lies in the consequences. Flappers befriending Gobbles doesn't lead to anything bad in the 2009 series, while in the 2026 pilot him befriending Fold only ends in him being betrayed in his whole world being destroyed.

What makes this especially tragic is that Flappers as a character seemed to be incredibly friendly and trusting of others. In addition, we know from the description of his Animatez that he highly values friendship and dislikes bullies.

Which makes it even more sad that he gets manipulated by a false friend into destroying his whole world. In addition, the line "Any bullies causing you trouble will get a Flappers fist to the face!" becomes quite ironic when remembering how Fold punched Flappers out and gave him a black eye.

Another thing I noticed is that the 2009 Flappers and 2026 Flappers are very similar. Both can get quite angry ("Prepare to die!"/"I've waited 20 years to rip you apart!") and both clearly have self esteem issues ("I only have 149! I'm a failure….My life is a lie…"/"Did I do this? Is it my fault?"). The only major difference between them at the moment is that the 2009 Flappers is a purely comedic character. The 2026 Flappers, on the other hand, seems to be playing some of the same traits for drama (even if he can be very comedic himself).

Both Flappers seem to have a pretty black and white view on things. I do wonder how the 2026 Flappers would be affected by the moral ambiguity being a part of Farcade fundamentally requires (since you're literally helping villains beat heroes in order to save the game worlds). Here's an example: What if he had to help Bowser, who's clearly very similar to Snappers? What if he had to help someone completely vile and irredeemable? What if he came across a world that's better off being destroyed (I.E. I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream)? And so on and so forth.

I don't know what else to say at the moment I just think Flappers is a shockingly sad character. The shit he went through would likely break a lot of people.

[penguinofspades]

I'm tempted to go on a ramble over-analysis thingy about Flappers the Super Dolphin from Gameoverse, since I find him pretty cute.

[penguinofspades]

What are some notable versions of Cinderella for you, whether good or bad?

I'll start with three versions:

Ever After, one of if not my personal favorite film adaptation of Cinderella.

The Tender Tale of Cinderella Penguin. I love penguins so obviously I had to bring this up.

Never-Ending Waltz by Snow White Blood. It's a very gorgeous song.

[princesssarisa]

What do different Cinderella adaptations have her true name be, other than "Ella"?

Rossini's opera La Cenerentola: Angelina, or Angiolina

Massenet's opera Cendrillon: Lucette

Wolf-Ferrari's opera Cenerentola: Violetta Pia

Viardot's opera Cendrillon: Marie

1955 Fritz Genschow film: Margrit (German) or Margaret (English dub)

1995 musical A Tale of Cinderella: Angelina

Ever After: A Cinderella Story: Danielle

2000 TV movie: Zezolla

2010 Märchenperlen adaptation: Marie

[penguinofspades]

This is all very interesting!

[penguinofspades]

I think it would be cool if more stuff with the Big Bad Wolf incorporated more tales aside from "Little Red Riding Hood" and "The Three Little Pigs".

Like imagine if "The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids" or "The Fox and the Wolf" or "Peter and the Wolf" or even "The Wolf and the Man" got involved.

[dewitty1]

I just googled this because I was intrigued by the naming difference, too: Cluedo originated in the UK, it was first called Murder, but the games company which bought the patent combined the words Clue and Ludo into one word. They changed the name because Ludo wasn't as well-known in the USA :(

Thanks @marlinspirkhall ʚ♡⃛ɞ(ू•ᴗ•ू❁)

This is in regards to a post I rebloggled about a week ago, where I mused in the tags about why Brits called it Cluedo.

I had to have a look thank to this "ask" too!

Welp, now I know!

Ludo is a classic, easy-to-learn strategy board game for 2 to 4 players. The objective is to race all 4 of your colored tokens from your starting base, clockwise around the entire board, and into your home column before anyone else.

The "clue/ludo combo" refers to Cluedo, the international name for the famous board game Clue.

While Clue is primarily a murder-mystery deduction game, its foundation is a mechanical nod to Ludo.

The game was devised in 1943 during World War II by a British musician named Anthony E. Pratt.

Publishers Waddingtons bought the patent in 1945 and suggested combining "clue" with the traditional tabletop game "Ludo".

When Parker Brothers licensed it in the US, they dropped the "Ludo" reference and simply renamed the game Clue.

(apparently us USA-ians have never heard of internationally famous Ludo)

OKEY DOKEY THEN! (ᵒ̤̑ ₀̑ ᵒ̤̑)wow!*✰

[mask131]

The entire TADC situation brings an interesting nuance to an old theory of the Internet - the one that the lighter/nicer/fluffier/gentler the work, the more awful, toxic, violent and nasty the fandom ; whereas fandoms of darker, more sinister, harder works tend to be more reasonable, understanding and well-balanced.

This theory is no news - it is an old idea that relies on the way fandoms have behaved when it comes to works of horror for example, or dark brutal war stories, or dark fantasy, or similar works ; versus cases like the infamous Bronies, THE definition of what happens when the fans of what is supposed to be a simplistic, goody two-shoes, nice and fluffy and light-colored children entertainment become a massive, nefarious, vindicative, petty and disturbed organized mass of adults. (Or at least it used to be, I don't know how it evolved since).

The dialogue was still up to date with the more recent case of "Steven Universe", which also became known for its toxic fandom (which for some became THE toxic fandom by definition) despite the story (while definitively darker than "My Little Pony" for sure) still being a relatively comedic, hopeful, "positive" show with colorful designs, feel-good messages and overall trying to be "nice".

But the way the exact same toxicity has gotten to a show like "The Amazing Digital Circus", which is definitively more mature in content and more anxious, sinister in tone, I think brings the nuance that this phenomenon isn't just about "feel-good kids shows". It is about any show that happens to look like one. Even if the story is dark or brooding, even if it is horror, even if it is about complex or sinister characters, as long as the show will have colorful design, as long as it will have a "kid-like" aesthetic, as long as it will have a "nice entertainment" vibe in art direction, the toxicity will raise up in the fandom.

Mind you, this is nothing proven - experiments and studies have to be led. But I believe what we thought before was wrong. It isn't that simplistic, optimistic, nice, "gentle" soft stories attract nasty, disturbed, violent people in the online space - it seems to be purely a question of aesthetic, of them swarming to colorful designs, cute styles and childhood-associated/nostalgia-bringing aesthetic.

However, to all the points above, I have to add two cases that muddle a bit the waters - the Miraculous case and the Helluvaverse case. The Miraculous case is definitively something similar to the My Little Pony case, or rather between the Pony and the Steven Universe case, as it is about a fandom taking way too seriously and in a way-too-complex style a show that was meant to be children's entertainment for PRIMARY SCHOOL KIDS. Because it looks good, because it has 3D style, because it was shared internationally and features teenagers, a lot of people assumed it was aimed at teenagers and young adults, but as I like to remind people the show is literaly put by TV channels in the same batch and hours as Paw Patrol (hence why it has a whole dozen of episodes dedicated to selling toys).

The Helluvaverse in turn is definitively a show for adult, by adults, about very dark subjects and other a lot of dark humor - gore, sex, etc... But it also has this more simplistic and colorful design, with a throwback-style that can potentially evoke the same "old cartoons" and "kids show" people are used to... But the more important tie between the two works is that in both cases the creator and showrunner got A) too much and too directly involved with the online fans and haters and B) clearly belonged to a generation or a type of people that is not used to the traps of the Internet and not ready to face the trolls, drama-makers, and people who are not their target audience. Thus a lot of the debates, drama and storm around their show was partially fueled by the creators themselves, who "fed the trolls" to the point you could say it was over-feeding.

But I think these two cases, of Thomas Astruc and Vivzipop's interaction with their toxic fandoms (and how it further made it more toxic) is to be compared with the way other creators have been dealing with toxic fandoms directly on the Internet - from Steven Universe to, more recently, Gooseworx, where in this case Gooseworx not being as "problematic" as Astruc or Vivziepop, and their case being one of a person that a mob on the Internet set out to destroy and managed to complete gut out (spiritually and morally speaking).

This post has no conclusion and goes nowhere, but there's a lot of comparisons to be made, a lot of studies to perform, and a lot of recurring things to consider.

EDIT: Oh yes I forgot to add - the only "nice, fluffy, cute" styled cartoon that seem to avoid the toxic fandom thing are those whose content truly, REALLY goes hard on the dark and makes it clear the target audience is meant to be enjoyers of horror comedy and black humor. I am thinking of Happy Tree Friends for example.

Maybe this is why things like Hazbin Hotel and the Amazing Digital Circus still attracted the toxic fandom so much despite going darker than things like "Steven Universe" (well at least early Steven Universe, it does get darker later, as all cartoons of this era did, slowly building up the maturity), because while playing on dark humor and horror comedy they did so with likable characters, optimistic conclusions, positive character growth and other "nice" messages. As opposed to stuff like Happy Tree Friends, which are clearly telling their audience "Hey, come see us if you want gore, horrible death, a lot of awful pain, and cosmic disturbingness... But it's cute!"

[themousefromfantasyland]

My theory is that any media with colorful, whimsical, toyetic, and nostalgic designs will eventually attract broken and hurt people who will cling to it obsessively.

They do that because for many these media become their comfort food, their biggest and sometimes only sources of pleasure in a very shitty life.

And what do you do when people insult or don't understand the characters, stories, and ships that saved your life? You feel the need to viciously attack them.

So the reason these colorful shows have such vicious fanbases is because they attract lonely, broken, mentally ill people who use it as a life boat.

@mask131

[penguinofspades]

Honestly, as someone who doesn't care about TADC, stuff like this makes me not want to become popular or famous. It's just not worth the risk.

[penguinofspades]

Nookipedia wins the trophy for best April Fool's joke ever

[tumblr]

will you accept the challenge?

[mysterious-cat-official]

well?

[penguinofspades]

What the hell is this?

[penguinofspades]

What the hell is the feed the snake thing Tumblr's doing right now

[inthetags]

Reblog and tag with médias which make you go "please read the original work" out of desperation because of the most popular adaptation

[ariel-seagull-wings]

@themousefromfantasyland

[adarkrainbow]

The lack of posts on this website about "Jack and the Beanstalk: The Real Story" is offensive.

[penguinofspades]

I would've thought it would've been brought up more, considering it was made by Jim Henson. Like c'mon just about anything made by Jim Henson's bound to be good.

[enchantedbook]

Carlo Colodi's 'Adventures of Pinocchio ' illustrated by Charles Copeland, 1904.

[adarkrainbow]

Remember, this is how it was supposed to end X)

[penguinofspades]

What a morbid ending.