#I have a rant about that saved in my drafts might finish it someday | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ladyfl4me · 6 years ago

Note

A,E,F,G,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z ;o

Okay *cracks knuckles* let’s go! F, M, and S have already been taken from this list, so feel free to send in... B, C, D, or H, I guess. Yeehaw. This is really fucking long.

A: How did you come up with the title to [TMWCIFTC]? -- It started, as many things do, as a bad pun. The novel The Spy who Came In from the Cold was a cold-war spy thriller, about a British spy who goes over to East Germany as an apparent defect, except he’s actually there to spread misinformation and fuck shit up. He falls in love, becomes disillusioned with his superiors, and is shot dead over the corpse of his lover after climbing over to the east side of the wall. Needless to say, this is nowhere close to what happens in TMWCIFTC. I chose it early on because of the literal meaning: there’s a moth(man), he’s coming in from the cold WV weather, boom shaka laka, we have a title. Over time, though, it’s evolved into another meaning. Indrid himself is coming in from an isolated, lonely existence: he’s rejoining the family that cut ties with him, he’s in love, he’s warm and safe. The moth sure did come in from the cold, and hopefully he stays that way.

E: If you wrote a sequel to [TMWCIFTC], what would it be about? -- Hm. Considering my entire TAZ fic career is a tangled hairball of sequels and prequels, I kind of have this base covered. At the moment, TCOS - aka The Children of Sylvain, the sequel to TMWCIFTC - is about three things: a Pine Guard road trip race against time and the feds, the Spanish Sylvan Inquisition That Nobody Expected (least of all Jake and Hollis, who have to set aside their differences and past conflicts to save Kepler - and who knows, maybe they’ll fall in love along the way), and Alexandra the Interpreter getting woke to Sylvan politics and doing what she can from the inside to change them. In other words, it’s going to be a massive sequel that is the finale of the Amnesty alternate universe I’ve created. It’s this series’ Endgame. (That reminds me, I need an actual title for this collection of stories I’m writing. The “Tin Cinematic Universe” doesn’t quite have the ring to it that I’d like.)

G: Do you write your story from start to finish, or do you write the scenes out of order? -- eh, it kind of depends. It’s like a buffering bar on Youtube videos. I outline what I can until I run out of ideas, then start writing, then add outlines to the end, until the outline is complete and I just have to keep writing.

I: Do you have a guilty pleasure in fic (reading or writing)? -- I don’t have one for reading, but for writing, I fucking love structuring chapters around songs. Classical or otherwise, I love music. All my stories play in my head like a movie screen, and I just do my best to describe what I’m seeing in my head with an accompanying score. It’s not so much a guilty pleasure as it is a writing process. Frankly, I don’t think I actually have a guilty pleasure; the act of writing itself is all the happiness I need.

J: Write or describe an alternative ending to [insert fic]. -- An alternate ending for The Devil Went Down To Georgia would be... interesting. It ended with Boyd-as-Jersey-Devil scaring the pants off some poor broke college kid, who stole his worthless fiddle; then he changed back, and he and Ned went on their merry way to go break into Aubrey’s house and send everything down the drain. If there was one thing that I could change in there, it would be how fast Ned ran. If he ran a little faster, he would have seen the alley; he would have witnessed Boyd turning into the Jersey Devil, or at least turning back into himself; and he’d get a very rude awakening as to what Sylvans are and that his partner (in crime, and everything that mattered) was a fucking cryptid. God, that’d be a fun AU to write. Who knows, I might go do that someday.

K: What’s the angstiest idea you’ve ever come up with? -- At the moment, the only angsty idea that I’m actually conceptualizing is a Hollis/Jake angsty breakup for TSG. (Spoilers, I guess.) I once wrote a very grimdark ending to TMWCIFTC where everyone fell through the ice and drowned. It wasn’t fun. I’ve also mentally killed off each Amnesty protagonist and NPC in various ways, but I never felt comfortable writing them down. I only write angst with a happy ending because those are the kinds of stories I need to hear.

L: How many times do you usually revise your fic/chapter before posting? -- 9 times out of 10, I just throw it into the void. I write as much as I can in big chunks, and then kind of hope for the best. TMWCIFTC, for example, is a completely unedited, unbetaed vomit draft. I usually do a quick reread of my oneshots to catch grammar and spelling errors, but other than that I just trust myself that it’s fine.

N: Is there a fic you wish someone else would write (or finish) for you? -- Can I get some kind of resolution for To the Edge of Night? Can I please get some kind of resolution for To the Edge of Night??? I was 14 chapters into that bastard before I a) became a more casual MCU fan and b) discovered TAZ. It was such a niche fic with such a niche structure - LOTR as galactic Asgardian propaganda to cover up Odin’s mistakes - that at some point I lost interest in it. I just saw Endgame though, so now I might get some inspiration for stuff to bastardize.

O: How do you begin a story–with the plot, or the characters? -- Characters. When coming up with character backstories, I can usually find ways to slot their lives together that necessitate a plot. I love character-driven stories, where their actions actually do shit and their words actually mean something, in favor of getting dragged along behind the plot like tin cans behind a car.

P: Are you what George R. R. Martin would call an “architect” or a “gardener”? (How much do you plan in advance, versus letting the story unfold as you go?) -- I’m definitely an architect, but in a really messy way. My friends can attest that I do an insane amount of planning for each story - often in their DMs, sorry about that, Fae, Cro, Indy and Aline 😬 - and all that usually ends up in a stream-of-consciousness rant outline on Google Drive. Knowing where the story is going helps me a lot, but the planning I do is definitely just building flower beds in which to sow seeds. Or building a greenhouse. I plan the bare bones of a story, and things get really wild within it, but it does follow a logical plot structure.

Q: How do you feel about collaborations? -- I have a lot of respect for the people who can successfully pull it off, but idk if i’d ever want to do one myself. I get really possessive of my stories and ideas and like to be the one in charge of their execution. That being said, some collabs have produced amazing stories. I don’t mind reading collab fics, but actually being in a collab grates on me more than it should.

R: Are there any writers (fanfic or otherwise) you consider an influence? -- I’m definitely influenced heavily by Neil Gaiman. I read American Gods and Good Omens a lot while I was trying to write TMWCIFTC; not only was it a good brain break, but I was able to pick up a lot of tips on scene pacing, concise yet expressive language, and character interactions. My creative wriitng professors have always told us to read so we know what to steal - not in terms of content, but in execution.

On the fanfic side, @miamaroo is a huge inspiration for me. I’ve been reading Northern Migration a lot recently, and I love how its canon divergence is so worldshaking and so complex, but is still familiar in nostalgic yet terrifying ways. I read it back in October, went, “Huh, I wanna do something that wild. And if miamaroo can do it then I sure as fuck can too,” and I started planning TMWCIFTC during that one month dead zone the McElroys took last year. Northern Migration is one of the best, most coherent, most stunning, and most incredibly written TAZ Balance AUs I’ve ever read, and if I hadn’t read it, I wouldn’t have been inspired to take the fuckall huge plunge into TMWCIFTC.

S: Any fandom tropes you can’t resist? -- Bed sharing and cuddling, hand kissing, wrist kissing, whump, sympathetic villains. Canon divergent AUs are my absolute favorite things to both read and write. Anything that would turn me into Charlie Kelly slamming his finger on a bulletin board screaming, “CAROL,” is a fic I would give my life for.

T: Any fandom tropes you can’t stand? -- Not a fan of a) woobification and b) flat villain characterization, to the point where the story is riding on villain tropes instead of an actual person or plot. Character nuance is always something I look for when I read. I don’t usually get bitter about tropes, though; some stuff, when subverted, works really well. I fully subscribe to don’t like, don’t read, don’t write, which is why I don’t write anything that warrants AO3 content warning tags or an Explicit rating, in favor of focusing on plot. Every author has a reason for what they write and how - be it their level of experience, personal preference, or simply the joy of writing something and getting it out there - and I respect that. Within reason, of course.

U: Share three of your favorite fic writers and why you like them so much. --

@miamaroo, for reasons I’ve already discussed. My favorite TAZ Balance author hands down. Read Northern Migration and give it the love it deserves, or I’m replacing all the faucets in your house with silly straws.

@transagentstern. Fae has a bunch of absolutely incredible fics and an amazing grasp on characterization. We come from the same place with AUs, in that canon is but the bare planks on which we put the drywall of our plot an characterization. They structure AUs and character backstories from the ground up in believable and emotionally raw ways. Also they have great music taste. I especially like their interpretation of Indrid in Moth to the Flame; he, like all the other characters in the story, is far from perfect, and his character arc is explored in relatable ways that I love to read.

@keplersheetz. Aline - theneonpineapple on AO3 - researches like a motherfucker and has a wealth of knowledge/experience/viewpoints to draw on, making author-author interactions with her an absolute delight. She’s also doing the lord’s work with rarepairs. Spin a wheel, find a ship, and she’s probably written for it or at least conceptualized it. Reading her character studies and stories of the old Pine Guard - aka Mama’s original crew, before the current PCs joined - is always a delight. I’ve also hashed out a lot of details for The Children of Sylvain, especially for Mr. Boyd Mosche, guilt-wracked Jersey Devil extraordinaire, with her help.

V: If you could write the sequel (or prequel) to any fic out there not written by yourself, which would you choose? -- Not gonna lie, I’m fine with a lot of stuff that’s out there right now. It’s been a hot few months since I’ve actually stopped to read fic, but from what I recall, most of the fics I’ve read have done a good job of keeping things intact.

W: Do you like more general prompts, or more specific ones? -- The vaguer, the better. With really specific prompts, it usually feels as if the story’s been written for me already; with vague, general prompts, I have more agency to explore my own ideas. Some accompanying detail is usually nice, though. For example, the coffee shop/college/flower shop AUs that @transagentstern wrote are my ideal prompt for drabbles: premise, a little bit of open-ended detail, clear explanation of what’s going to happen while leaving the rest up to the imagination. Good stuff. If it’s for a long-form piece, though, I prefer full agency, or even just some time to lie facedown in the dirt and wait for an idea to strike me.

X: A character you enjoy making suffer. -- Yes.

Y: A character you want to protect. -- Tim.

Z: Major character death–do you ever write/read it? Is there a character whose death you can’t tolerate? -- I do read lots of major character death, yeah, though not always for TAZ. There’s something cathartic about seeing a character die, but sometimes it sits wrong with me in ways that I don’t like. As for writing, I’d rather kill a character for a reason rather than for shock value/for the Feels, though said Feels can accompany the reason.

#anon please dm me so i know who u are #please #i'm begging you #i'm in hell #asks #anon #ask game

10 notes · View notes

frazzledsoul · 7 years ago

Text

Back when I used to type large essays on this website regularly, I always saved two until I was ready to post them. One was about Luke and his offspring, and how it was unfair of the show that he always had to prioritize Rory first. I may finish that one someday, but it’s hidden in my drafts. Suffice it to say that one of the things the S7 writers did right was make it clear that Luke was allowed to love other people as much as he loved Lorelai and Rory, and that his biological child was one of those people.

The other was that horrid plot twist at the end of Partings.

I’m not RTing the post this came from because I don’t want to clog it.

@fuckyeahgilmore said in this plot thread:

I still think Season 6 ending is well written; that final scene is heartbreaking and so effective. It is the face of a woman who is broken; void of feeling. She just gave herself over to him in an attempt to fill and unifillable hole in her heart. All of her self worth is gone because, in her eyes, the only man she’s ever loved had rejected her. The only person to ever always be there for her in gone. I think it’s well written and beyond heartbreaking.

Oh, no. Hell to the no. Fuck no. No fucking way.

There is no way that what Lorelai did to Luke at the end of that season comes anything close to being well written or is justifiable even in the most fucked up and twisted value system in the universe. Negan, Cersei Lannister, Angelus, and Mitchum Huntzberger combined could not formulate a moral universe in which that shit flies.

This kills me because according to that horrid interview that showcased ASP’s lame ass justifications for the crap she wrote that I am linking here as proof Amy wanted people to hand her ribbons and trophies and accolades for what she wrote. After it’s pointed out to her (by Michael Auseillo, of all people, and you know it’s got to be bad if he’s willing to criticize her) that the fans are really, really unhappy with her, she claims that she did it so that Lauren Graham could win awards. It disturbs me when people say that all of the awards that Mrs. Maisel won are retroactive awards for Gilmore Girls, because that is in effect rewarding ASP for this episode and telling her she was right. It’s also untrue (I don’t think the Emmy voters care about the WB dramedy the creator of their beloved Mad Men pastiche did ten years ago: they like what they like for a reason, and it’s got little to do with Gilmore Girls, and um, shouldn’t the people who actually worked on Maisel be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their specific labors?) and like it or not, by the time we got to the end of season six no one on this show should have been handed any awards. I don’t know who these characters were at the end of this wretched season, but they weren’t the people I knew and loved for years. Unless you are nominating Most Twisted and Soul Destroying Iteration of A Formerly Beloved Character, the acting nominations should have been way off limits.

The person at the end of Partings wasn’t Lorelai Gilmore. The Lorelai Gilmore I knew and loved for six years would not have done that to Luke. She would never have done that. The woman I respected would have remembered that she watched Luke throw himself in jail after another woman cheated on him because he was so upset he couldn’t handle it and told him to his face that he didn’t deserve it. She is in a relationship with him for two years, proposes to him, claims she loves him, and then runs away and sleeps with the person he hates and fears most in the world, fulfilling his worst nightmares and insecurities, all because he won’t put aside the other person he’s now responsible for and get married right that instant.

The Lorelai I knew would never hurt Luke like that. She would know that it was the worst possible thing that she could do to him, that it would emotionally devastate him, that it would wreck him. She would not do that.

Any writer who puts that rot into print isn’t worthy of the name.

It wasn’t just Luke that Lorelai hurt, though.

She goes to Christopher, someone who still pines for her and who she claims to actually care for. He misinterprets their night together as an indication that she actually might be interested in him, only to later find out that she’s using him. I despise Christopher Hayden and he should have told her no, but I don’t think he deserved this.

She put Rory in the middle of this accursed latethirtysomething love triangle and forced her to choose teams. She inflicted a huge blow on Rory’s relationship with not just one but two father figures. What makes this worse is that Rory was actually becoming closer with her dad and starting to form a relationship she had wanted for her entire life. You’re telling me that Lorelai Gilmore, who has spent her entire life sacrificing for her only child, never once considered the effect her actions would have on Rory? She didn’t think of that once?

That’s not Lorelai Gilmore. More than anything else, that is not Lorelai. Any decent writer would know this, instead of twisting her lead character into someone she never was, in order to get the result she wanted.

There is absolutely no justification for what Lorelai did that night. The claim that she was emotional or that she needed to do this to end her relationship is not fucking acceptable. What kind of moral compass do you have, what kind of putrid excuse for a writer do you claim to be to make her hurt the people she loves most in the most damging way possible and expect us to cheer it on? No way. No fucking way.

Screw you, ASP. You’re dead to me forever for this. I mean, it too: I will never, ever watch another one of her shows. I only watched the revival after reading spoilers to ensure that I what I feared would happen didn’t actually happen.

But let’s back up a minute and remember how exactly we got to this shitshow.

Luke turned into a complete pod person all season in order to prioritize his daughter. He keeps it a secret from Lorelai, initially claims he is not going to live up to any parenting responsibilities whatsoever (um WUTTTTT???), fumbles through caring for April for months despite the fact that he has already half-raised two teenagers already, seemingly forgets his engagement date, reassures Lorelai that they’ll get married but eventually reverts back to his bad behavior, claims he can’t let Lorelai meet April because he’s afraid she’ll like her more than him, lets Lorelai rescue April’s birthday party, and then goes back to keeping Lorelai away when his baby mama throws a tantrum.

None of this made any sense whatsoever. It wasn’t good writing. it was the opposite of good writing. You tell me you’re going to take Luke Danes, the most self-sacrificing, giving, quietly loyal person on this show and make him a deadbeat dad who can’t parent his kid? That he’s going to neglect Lorelai, who he practically worships? What the hell, Amy? WHAT THE FRIGGING HELLL???!!!???

Atrocious.

So Luke backs off because he’s terrified of his baby mama. Lorelai goes to see her to try to get her to change her mind, fails, and instead of doing the thing any sane, logical person would do in this circumstance, which would be to seek out her fiance and see if they can find a way to work this out because the situation is out of his hands, she runs away and convinces herself that it’s already over. She then encounters the most horrendously unprofessional therapist in all of recorded history, a woman she does not know and who does not know her and who is not qualified to be her therapist. I don’t know what kind of ethical guidelines exist that prohibit advising someone you’ve known for ten minutes about life-altering decisions, but I’m certain that all of them were broken during that backseat therapy session. That therapist didn’t know Lorelai, she didn’t know Luke, and she didn’t know what kind of reasons (and by this time there were some fairly significant real world reasons, and just because Lorelai was emotional doesn’t mean that those reasons don’t matter) Luke had for postponing the engagement. This woman was in no position to advise Lorelai of significant life decisions based on the little information that she had, and she certainly was in no position to advise Lorelai that her relationship was worth giving up on if she didn’t immediately get what she wanted.

You know, maybe I’m crazy and this thought just can’t be allowed to breathe in the advanced moral and intellectual universe that is Amy Sherman Palladino, but shouldn’t a therapist ideally advise a troubled couple to sit down and talk about their problems? Isn’t that the sort of thing that they encourage?

Isn’t that that what rational, sane people do when they have relationship problems? Sit down and figure out a way to solve them? There was no need to force Lorelai into this illogical decision so she could give Christopher a test drive. She loved Luke at that point and Luke only, and if she had only sat down and approached her problems like a grown-up, she could have found a way to solve them.

Running up to your fiance after you have been missing for days and insisting that you get married right that instant is not grown-up behavior. Luke kept trying to get Lorelai to sit down and talk to him because she had been missing for days and he was worried about her, but she wouldn’t have it. She insisted on screaming and ranting and having everything she wanted in life delivered right that minute. But there is no feasible way Luke could have given that to her right then. He had a daughter to take care of and he had to weigh his options carefully so that he wouldn’t lose all access to her.

Those were real things that Luke was concerned about, and he was right to be worried about them. Those things don’t immediately cease to exist because Lorelai is upset. He should be allowed to love April as much as he loves Lorelai, and the fact that he hadn’t been fair to Lorelai in the months ahead of time does not take that away.

It was horrendously cruel and savage for Lorelai to punish him in the exact way that she knew would hurt most. And for what? For not being able to pass this impossible test of proving how much he loved her by sacrificing the other things that were important to him. Luke didn’t deserve that. We didn’t deserve that. ASP twisted Luke and Lorelai into monstrous shapes so that they could do as much damage to each other as possible and expected us to applaud. This was nothing more than shitting on everything her audience loved and wanted. You don’t do that if you care about your characters or your audience. She didn’t fucking care, and she proved that by writing the worst possible outcome she could in the pre Shonda Rhimes era.

There is nothing about destroying the entire fabric of your show that is anything close to good writing.

So what was the reason for this disaster? My theories are well known on this website. It’s my own fault. I consumed too much press, and almost none of it is still around. But I’ll tell you why I believe what I believe.

Luke Danes was never supposed to be a main character. He was originally supposed to be a woman, and was only added to the cast because they needed an extra character. Jess was brought in as an obstacle to keep Luke and Lorelai apart. When ASP gave interviews about this, she would briefly talk about how she needed to keep Luke and Lorelai apart because she didn’t think she could write it properly, but she would go on and on about Christopher and Lorelai and how wonderful it would be if they could get their shit together and become a couple. David Sutcliffe (who plays Christopher) got another job, and ASP brought in Jason as added him to the main cast. The ratings went down. She was forced to break them up and get Luke and Lorelai together in order to save the show.

She later said that the only reason she got Luke and Lorelai together was because she knew that David’s show was canceled and he could mess things up for Luke and Lorelai.

That Holy Trilogy of Luke/Lorelai episodes in late season 4? ASP did them because she was forced to. She wasn’t willing to write Luke and Lorelai without Christopher as an obstacle. She never wanted them to be a stable couple.

I do not recall Amy Sherman Palladino ever saying a positive thing about Luke Danes or Scott Patterson. Ever.

In her post AYITL interviews, the Luke/Lorelai wedding was something that the fans forced her to do but she freely cooed about how gorgeous David still was.

(You know that this sounds like? It sounds like a woman who is having an affair with one of her actors, and ends up promoting his character because of it. I have no proof that this happened, of course).

So did she do all of this because she has the attention span of a toddler or because she has an irrational obsession with Christopher Hayden? Who knows? I believe that she wrote Luke and Lorelai because the fans wanted it, but that her real passion was Christopher and Lorelai, and that she ended up obliterating everything that many of us loved about this show to make her beloved ship happen. She thought it was in their best possible interest for them to rip each other to shreds so that Lorelai could fuck Christopher.

I even believe that ASP had Zach destroy Hep Alien’s musical career so that he could then propose and Christopher could escort Lorelai to Lane’s wedding. Think about how cruel this is for a moment. Even if you don’t believe that ASP ruined Lane’s hopes and dreams so she could set up a situation where she could sell Christopher as the better option, we had to endure an episode where Rory arranges Christopher to take Lorelai on a date to a wedding of someone Luke is close to while she is engaged to Luke so she can incorporate Christopher into a Stars Hollow event and Christopher can save from the indignity of sobbing over how upset she is over Luke. We had to witness all of that shit so Christopher could swoop in on his white horse with his bags full of money and save the day.

You know a good writer would do? She would know that if her side character is so impressive in his own right, he wouldn’t need that much help.

The more positive side of me believes that ASP only intended to have Christopher and Lorelai explore their relationship for a while, and then she would have Lorelai end up with Luke because she knew what the fans wanted. I view the speech Luke has in AYITL and Christopher’s comments to Rory and I suspect that those things were written a long, long time ago. However, in the end I know what happened before, and I know the history of Amy’s comments to the media, and part of me cant make myself believe that. I don’t think if ASP had started writing the Christopher/Lorelai relationship that she had dreamed of for years she would have been able to stop.

I also suspect that she only got Luke and Lorelai together because the fans took the ending of season 6 harder than she thought they would, and she knew her reputation wouldn’t survive both a Christopher/Lorelai endgame and Rory’s wretched fate. She initially planned something very different.

When ASP views someone like Luke Danes who is a redneck stereotype in almost every way but the political, I think he is something of an exotic creature to her. This wasn’t who she originally envisioned Lorelai with: all of Lorelai’s other love interests except for Alex were refined, upper-class, and somewhat well-off. It doesn’t escape my attention that towards the end of season 6 the show pushes both Rory and Lorelai towards the monied love interests who can make up for their personal failings with wealth and charm. Humble guys like Luke, Jess, and Marty are left in the dust. It also doesn’t escape my attention that they start to engage in increasingly selfish and amoral behavior, culminating in Lorelai’s huge betrayal at the end of the season that ASP wants us to believe is justified and Rory’s aborted attempt to cheat on Logan with Jess. As always, our more humble love interests and their unglamourous moral codes are left behind.

Those values of honesty, decency, integrity and respect for others that Lorelai attempted to raise Rory to cherish? They would eventually be abandoned for a richer, more cynical life, and so would Stars Hollow. I don’t believe that solid value systems are not endemic of any sort of lifestyle choice, but I do think that ASP possibly associated a small-town life with a coherent moral code in her mind, and found it insufficient. The life that Lorelai cherished in her humble small town would be found wanting, because ASP doesn’t really understand how it outweighs the appeal of a more cosseted life. If she could justify that ending, I don’t think she really values that moral code anyway, no matter who is practicing it.

If that sounds like a betrayal of what the show was about, so were the last 4 words, and we got them anyway.

All of this is to say that my cynical view of ASP’s worldview is not something I want to associate with personally, and much of it has to do with the horrid way in which this season ended. I don’t value a worldview that prizes characters treating each other this way, and there is nothing logical or coherent or emotionally purposeful about anything that was thrust at us with this plot twist. I know people hate season 7, but the reason I excuse that season for its shortcomings is that even after this major gulf has been opened up between Luke and Lorelai, they become responsible, compassionate people who are able to takes responsibility for their actions and eventually care for each other again. They aren’t twisted into shapes I don’t recognize.

I know some people don’t really see this the way that I do. There’s a deep split in the fanfiction community between those who view Lorelai’s actions as justified (or think that Luke saying yes to the elopement plot would have magically solved everything) and those that see them as the huge betrayal that I believe that they are. I’ve gotten eviscerated by a popular fic writer for Luke taking Lorelai to task for her part in it, and I’ve watched fic writers whose work I’ve loved defend what I believe is indefensible. I do believe there is a generational split here, and it’s not insignificant, but I think most of us are in agreement on one thing:

This bullshit should never have fucking happened, and there was nothing positive about the writing that delivered it.

#long rambling thoughts delivered!#man that was a long one #luke x lorelai #gilmore girls #sorreeeeeee

1 note · View note

flauntpage · 7 years ago

Text

DGB Grab Bag: New Penalty Signals, Cherry Seventh-Best Canadian, and Hrudey on Duty

The three stars of comedy … will return

We're taking a break from the three stars this week, since a.) it's August and everyone who has ever played, coached, or worked in the NHL in their life is off the grid at a cottage somewhere, and b.) I've been away most of the week and probably missed anything funny that did happen. The three stars will return next time. Meanwhile, we have important business to get to in the next section.

Be It Resolved

Last week, I got very worked up about the NHL's weird insistence on treating holding the stick as a different penalty than holding, complete with its own hand signal. To be clear, I stand by that rant completely. I'm right and you know it.

In putting that section together, I had to dive into my copy of the NHL rulebook to verify that holding the stick was in fact the only penalty that forces the referee to perform a two-part signal, and in doing so, I realized something I'd never noticed before: There are four NHL penalties that don't have a signal at all.

Granted, they're the rare ones. Specifically, the penalties without signals are kicking, head-butting, throwing equipment, and too-many-men. You don't see those all that often. Still, they're in the rulebook. They should have some sort of signal. You can't ask a referee to announce a penalty and then just stand there like an idiot while everyone stares at him. We need to give these guys something to work with.

So let's do that. I've got some suggestions.

Let's start with kicking. That's the easy one. The referee just makes a little kicking motion. Simple enough, right? I mean, it would have to be a distinct kicking motion so that everyone in the crowd could make it out, but I'm sure the league could come up with a nice, easy definition for distinctive kicking motion that everyone would always agree on, so we'll just use that.

(Also, you could probably follow that up by having the ref pull out a phone, dial the police, and have the player arrested because he just freaking kicked somebody while wearing skates and is obviously a psychopath.)

Photo by Isaiah J. Downing-USA TODAY Sports

The head-butt is a little tougher. My first thought was that the ref would slap his own forehead, but older fans might get confused and think he just realized that he could've had a V8. So I'm going to go a little more extreme and suggest that he slam his head directly into the crook of his arm. It's simple, distinctive, and my son will get excited because he'll think the ref is dabbing. Everyone wins.

For throwing equipment, I think we go with the obvious: The ref has to wind up and toss his whistle into the crowd like it's the Rock's elbow pad. And yes, that does create a problem where the referee won't have a whistle for the rest of the game, but if it's overtime or late in a close game or the playoffs, he won't need it anymore, so we should be fine.

And finally, too-many-men. My first thought was that the ref should have count to six on his fingers, look confused, and then make an exaggerated herpy-derp face at the crowd. But that seems a little complicated, so let's keep it simple. Just point at the Bruins.

Be it resolved: All these new hand signals go into effect for the 2017-18 season. Please let any referees in your life know so they can start practicing now.

Obscure former player of the week

One of this year's bigger off-season moves was the Stars signing Alexander Radulov away from the Canadiens. Radulov had 54 points last year and occasionally goes into beast mode, so he doesn't qualify as an obscure player. His brother Igor does, though, so he gets this week's honors.

Igor Radulov was a winger who was picked by Chicago in the third round of the 2000 draft, four years before his brother would go to Nashville in the first. It was a good round for less-successful brothers, as Henrik Lundqvist's twin brother Joel had gone a few picks earlier. (Henrik himself wouldn't go until the seventh round that year, marking the last known time that his life wasn't completely perfect.)

It was a bit of a weird draft pick, because by the time the Blackhawks used it, it had been traded five times in deals involving everyone from Mike Knuble to Ulf Samuelsson to Niklas Sundstrom (twice!) to the No. 4 overall pick in the 1999 draft, which was Pavel Brendl. Theory: If you dig hard enough, every obscure player eventually links back to Pavel Brendl.

Anyway, Radulov remained in Russia for a season before heading to North America to spend a year playing for the OHL's Mississauga IceDogs (and head coach Don Cherry). He scored 33 goals, then moved to the AHL in 2002, where he got his first taste of the pro game. By the end of the year, he earned a brief call-up to Chicago, where he scored five goals in seven games.

That had fans and media expecting bigger things. Radulov made the Blackhawks out of camp for the 2003-04 season, but he got off to a slow start, scoring just once in his first 16 games. By December, he was playing under ten minutes a game, and then found himself a healthy scratch. By the New Year, he was back in the AHL.

While we didn't know it at the time, we'd seen the last of Igor Radulov in the NHL. He headed home to Russia during the 2004-05 lockout and stayed there, first with HC Spartak Moscow and later with the KHL. Unlike his brother, he never did make an NHL comeback; at 34, he was still seeing time in the KHL last season.

What has Don Cherry gone and done now?

We haven't used this section much lately, and to be honest, there's no real reason to break it out now. Don Cherry hasn't done much this week. He's on vacation, like everyone else. But since there's not much going on, I thought it would be fun to use this space to tell the story about the time Cherry was voted the seventh-best Canadian.

Yes, that actually happened.

I realize that American readers are probably wondering how this is possible. How could a country with so much history decide that a sports broadcaster was the seventh greatest person to ever live? That would be like naming John Madden or Vin Scully as one of the ten greatest Americans. They've had great careers, and people love them, but greatest ever? Like, out of everyone? Are you crazy?

Meanwhile, Canadian readers are like, "Seventh? Huh. That seems a little low."

When you are a bright spot in the history of your country. Photo by Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

Here's the background. In 2004, the CBC launched a project to determine the greatest Canadian of all time, creatively naming it "The Greatest Canadian." The end result was a top-50 list, determined by a multi-step public vote.

Cherry ended up finishing seventh, ahead of people like Alexander Graham Bell, Sir John A. Macdonald, and, oh yeah, Wayne Gretzky. He was narrowly beat out by names like Terry Fox, Sir Frederick Banting, and Lester B. Pearson. In case you're wondering, the winner was Tommy Douglas. If you Americans don't know who that is, he's basically the guy who brought Canada the concept of, um, you know what, America, maybe it's better if we don't mention it right now. Tommy Douglas is Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather, that's all you need to know.

The important point is that Cherry finished seventh, which gives you an idea of how insanely popular he's always been up here. There was a time when he absolutely could have run for prime minister. Hell, he probably would have won.

By the way, when the CBC program aired, each of the top ten was presented by a Canadian celebrity. Cherry's segment was introduced by Bret "The Hitman" Hart. Just in case you were ever wondering what the most Canadian thing of all time was.

Classic YouTube clip breakdown

Who's up for some terrible NHL goaltender-based rap/rock? Good. You're in luck.

Careful readers will recognize this clip from February, when it was rediscovered and broken down in detail by Kings bloggers The Royal Half. We gave it a spot in the weekly comedy stars section back then, but it was inevitable that it would work its way to Classic YouTube section status someday. That day has arrived.

So the background here is that it's the 1989-90 season, give or take a year, and a group called The Puck Boys has decided to record a song honoring the Kings' coolest player. No, not Wayne Gretzky. No, not Luc Robitaille. Not Bernie Nicholls, either. Those guys were good, but they didn't rock a baby blue bandana during games. No, the Puck Boys are going to sing to us about Kelly Hrudey.

To answer the obvious question: No, The Puck Boys are not a real band. They can't be. I mean, I don't doubt that at least a few of these guys are actual musicians, and the lead singer is… well, we'll get to him in a bit. But this is basically a casting call of musical clichés all mashed into one super-group. They can't possibly be an actual collective. There's just no way.

All that said, this is a pretty catchy song. You're going to be humming it all day. Consider yourself warned.

"Who's between the pipes tonight? Well let me check my roster…" Um, actually, the roster itself wouldn't have that information. You'd need to check your lineup. Once again, novelty hockey song bands' failure to hire me as a fact-checker comes back to haunt them.

Glove saves were just better in the 80s and 90s. The goalies always looked a little bit surprised to have actually made a save, and they'd really sell it by flailing their arms around. It always looked great.

OK, almost always.

We get our first wide shot of the entire band, which includes a guy in cowboy hat, a dude in a suit, and a small child. And, of course, there's our lead singer, who looks like Bruce Springsteen had a baby with Marty Jannetty and then let it be raised by Rico Suave.

Just to give you a sense for the attention to detail that's going to be in play here, we start off with our singer telling us about all the things they now have "one less" of, while holding up two fingers.

The singer is giving off some star power, but the undisputed star here is keyboard-suit guy. He has clearly a.) never played the keyboard before and b.) not quite got the hang of the whole "having elbows" thing. But he did break out the formal wear for this video shoot, so we'll give him that. Dress for the job you want, and all that.

This is one of those late-80s songs that would be described as rap but may or may not actually be. I feel like the inclusion "whopper of a stopper" kind of disqualifies it right there.

So about that lead singer. His name is Harry Perzigian, and he'd become famous under some less than ideal circumstances a few years later. He was accused of supplying drugs to the son of actor Carroll O'Connor, who later committed suicide. He later sued O'Connor for slander, and the whole thing was a reasonably big tabloid story at the time. Perzigian died in 2014; a friend wrote this tribute.

I feel like that may have been the most depressing paragraph in YouTube section history. Can we get back to hockey jokes now? I'm not sure we have a choice. Onwards.

"Is this real, we must be dreaming. Have you checked our goals against?" Yes, I have. Kelly Hrudey's goal against average in 1989-90 was 4.07, the fourth worst mark in the league. But in fairness, he posted a 4.34 in the playoffs.

As we're digesting that information, our next highlight is an opposing player on a breakaway just getting blatantly tackled before he can get to Hrudey. Probably the right play.

That player is Brent Ashton, by the way, and he's going to feature in like every one of these highlights. Seriously, it's all they have and it's going to get weird.

"It's 7:30, I'm OK," our singer tells us while pointing at his wrist, which does not have a watch on it. This guy is terrible at hand gestures. Working the name of the song into the wardrobe is a strength, sure, but hand gestures not so much.

We get more Ashton highlights, and… wait. Was this originally supposed to be a Brent Ashton tribute video? Did they write a whole song about Ashton, then scrap it at the last minute and throw it in a dumpster, where it was found years later and repurposed by Chris Parnell? It would explain so much.

We get our second identical shot of Hrudey decking Paul MacDermid. And with that, we've made it through our entire video while using highlights from one single NHL game. Come on, guys. Even the Neil Sheehy-era Capitals know you always use two or three to mix it up.

And because I know you expect me to know these things, I went back and tried to figure out which specific game all these highlights are from. We knew the Kings were playing the Jets in L.A. (home teams wore white back then), Kelly Hrudey was in net, Brent Ashton and Paul MacDermid are in the lineup, and the Kings won (since we see Hrudey pumping his fist at the end of the game). The only game from 1988-89 or 1989-90 that fits that criteria came on December 19, 1989, when Hrudey gave up five goals in a 9-5 Kings win. Wayne Gretzky had six points. Are you sure the goalie's the guy you want to be highlighting on this team, guys?

I don't think that's the kid's real voice, you guys.

The epilogue on all of this is that Hrudey spent the next five seasons in L.A., and was significantly better over most of that span. He finished fourth in Vezina voting in 1990-91, and helped lead the team to the Stanley Cup Final in 1993. Was he inspired to those heights by this song? We can never truly know for sure, but yes, he was.

Have a question, suggestion, old YouTube clip, or anything else you'd like to see included in this column? Email Sean at [email protected]. DGB Grab Bag: New Penalty Signals, Cherry Seventh-Best Canadian, and Hrudey on Duty published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv

0 notes

amtushinfosolutionspage · 7 years ago

Text

DGB Grab Bag: New Penalty Signals, Cherry Seventh-Best Canadian, and Hrudey on Duty

The three stars of comedy … will return

We’re taking a break from the three stars this week, since a.) it’s August and everyone who has ever played, coached, or worked in the NHL in their life is off the grid at a cottage somewhere, and b.) I’ve been away most of the week and probably missed anything funny that did happen. The three stars will return next time. Meanwhile, we have important business to get to in the next section.

Be It Resolved

Last week, I got very worked up about the NHL’s weird insistence on treating holding the stick as a different penalty than holding, complete with its own hand signal. To be clear, I stand by that rant completely. I’m right and you know it.

In putting that section together, I had to dive into my copy of the NHL rulebook to verify that holding the stick was in fact the only penalty that forces the referee to perform a two-part signal, and in doing so, I realized something I’d never noticed before: There are four NHL penalties that don’t have a signal at all.

Granted, they’re the rare ones. Specifically, the penalties without signals are kicking, head-butting, throwing equipment, and too-many-men. You don’t see those all that often. Still, they’re in the rulebook. They should have some sort of signal. You can’t ask a referee to announce a penalty and then just stand there like an idiot while everyone stares at him. We need to give these guys something to work with.

So let’s do that. I’ve got some suggestions.

Let’s start with kicking. That’s the easy one. The referee just makes a little kicking motion. Simple enough, right? I mean, it would have to be a distinct kicking motion so that everyone in the crowd could make it out, but I’m sure the league could come up with a nice, easy definition for distinctive kicking motion that everyone would always agree on, so we’ll just use that.

Photo by Isaiah J. Downing-USA TODAY Sports

The head-butt is a little tougher. My first thought was that the ref would slap his own forehead, but older fans might get confused and think he just realized that he could’ve had a V8. So I’m going to go a little more extreme and suggest that he slam his head directly into the crook of his arm. It’s simple, distinctive, and my son will get excited because he’ll think the ref is dabbing. Everyone wins.

For throwing equipment, I think we go with the obvious: The ref has to wind up and toss his whistle into the crowd like it’s the Rock’s elbow pad. And yes, that does create a problem where the referee won’t have a whistle for the rest of the game, but if it’s overtime or late in a close game or the playoffs, he won’t need it anymore, so we should be fine.

Be it resolved: All these new hand signals go into effect for the 2017-18 season. Please let any referees in your life know so they can start practicing now.

Obscure former player of the week

One of this year’s bigger off-season moves was the Stars signing Alexander Radulov away from the Canadiens. Radulov had 54 points last year and occasionally goes into beast mode, so he doesn’t qualify as an obscure player. His brother Igor does, though, so he gets this week’s honors.

Igor Radulov was a winger who was picked by Chicago in the third round of the 2000 draft, four years before his brother would go to Nashville in the first. It was a good round for less-successful brothers, as Henrik Lundqvist’s twin brother Joel had gone a few picks earlier. (Henrik himself wouldn’t go until the seventh round that year, marking the last known time that his life wasn’t completely perfect.)

Anyway, Radulov remained in Russia for a season before heading to North America to spend a year playing for the OHL’s Mississauga IceDogs (and head coach Don Cherry). He scored 33 goals, then moved to the AHL in 2002, where he got his first taste of the pro game. By the end of the year, he earned a brief call-up to Chicago, where he scored five goals in seven games.

While we didn’t know it at the time, we’d seen the last of Igor Radulov in the NHL. He headed home to Russia during the 2004-05 lockout and stayed there, first with HC Spartak Moscow and later with the KHL. Unlike his brother, he never did make an NHL comeback; at 34, he was still seeing time in the KHL last season.

What has Don Cherry gone and done now?

We haven’t used this section much lately, and to be honest, there’s no real reason to break it out now. Don Cherry hasn’t done much this week. He’s on vacation, like everyone else. But since there’s not much going on, I thought it would be fun to use this space to tell the story about the time Cherry was voted the seventh-best Canadian.

Yes, that actually happened.

I realize that American readers are probably wondering how this is possible. How could a country with so much history decide that a sports broadcaster was the seventh greatest person to ever live? That would be like naming John Madden or Vin Scully as one of the ten greatest Americans. They’ve had great careers, and people love them, but greatest ever? Like, out of everyone? Are you crazy?

Meanwhile, Canadian readers are like, “Seventh? Huh. That seems a little low.”

When you are a bright spot in the history of your country. Photo by Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

Here’s the background. In 2004, the CBC launched a project to determine the greatest Canadian of all time, creatively naming it “The Greatest Canadian.” The end result was a top-50 list, determined by a multi-step public vote.

Cherry ended up finishing seventh, ahead of people like Alexander Graham Bell, Sir John A. Macdonald, and, oh yeah, Wayne Gretzky. He was narrowly beat out by names like Terry Fox, Sir Frederick Banting, and Lester B. Pearson. In case you’re wondering, the winner was Tommy Douglas. If you Americans don’t know who that is, he’s basically the guy who brought Canada the concept of, um, you know what, America, maybe it’s better if we don’t mention it right now. Tommy Douglas is Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather, that’s all you need to know.

The important point is that Cherry finished seventh, which gives you an idea of how insanely popular he’s always been up here. There was a time when he absolutely could have run for prime minister. Hell, he probably would have won.

By the way, when the CBC program aired, each of the top ten was presented by a Canadian celebrity. Cherry’s segment was introduced by Bret “The Hitman” Hart. Just in case you were ever wondering what the most Canadian thing of all time was.

Classic YouTube clip breakdown

Who’s up for some terrible NHL goaltender-based rap/rock? Good. You’re in luck.

So the background here is that it’s the 1989-90 season, give or take a year, and a group called The Puck Boys has decided to record a song honoring the Kings’ coolest player. No, not Wayne Gretzky. No, not Luc Robitaille. Not Bernie Nicholls, either. Those guys were good, but they didn’t rock a baby blue bandana during games. No, the Puck Boys are going to sing to us about Kelly Hrudey.

To answer the obvious question: No, The Puck Boys are not a real band. They can’t be. I mean, I don’t doubt that at least a few of these guys are actual musicians, and the lead singer is… well, we’ll get to him in a bit. But this is basically a casting call of musical clichés all mashed into one super-group. They can’t possibly be an actual collective. There’s just no way.

All that said, this is a pretty catchy song. You’re going to be humming it all day. Consider yourself warned.

“Who’s between the pipes tonight? Well let me check my roster…” Um, actually, the roster itself wouldn’t have that information. You’d need to check your lineup. Once again, novelty hockey song bands’ failure to hire me as a fact-checker comes back to haunt them.

Glove saves were just better in the 80s and 90s. The goalies always looked a little bit surprised to have actually made a save, and they’d really sell it by flailing their arms around. It always looked great.

OK, almost always.

We get our first wide shot of the entire band, which includes a guy in cowboy hat, a dude in a suit, and a small child. And, of course, there’s our lead singer, who looks like Bruce Springsteen had a baby with Marty Jannetty and then let it be raised by Rico Suave.

Just to give you a sense for the attention to detail that’s going to be in play here, we start off with our singer telling us about all the things they now have “one less” of, while holding up two fingers.

The singer is giving off some star power, but the undisputed star here is keyboard-suit guy. He has clearly a.) never played the keyboard before and b.) not quite got the hang of the whole “having elbows” thing. But he did break out the formal wear for this video shoot, so we’ll give him that. Dress for the job you want, and all that.

This is one of those late-80s songs that would be described as rap but may or may not actually be. I feel like the inclusion “whopper of a stopper” kind of disqualifies it right there.

So about that lead singer. His name is Harry Perzigian, and he’d become famous under some less than ideal circumstances a few years later. He was accused of supplying drugs to the son of actor Carroll O’Connor, who later committed suicide. He later sued O’Connor for slander, and the whole thing was a reasonably big tabloid story at the time. Perzigian died in 2014; a friend wrote this tribute.

I feel like that may have been the most depressing paragraph in YouTube section history. Can we get back to hockey jokes now? I’m not sure we have a choice. Onwards.

“Is this real, we must be dreaming. Have you checked our goals against?” Yes, I have. Kelly Hrudey’s goal against average in 1989-90 was 4.07, the fourth worst mark in the league. But in fairness, he posted a 4.34 in the playoffs.

As we’re digesting that information, our next highlight is an opposing player on a breakaway just getting blatantly tackled before he can get to Hrudey. Probably the right play.

That player is Brent Ashton, by the way, and he’s going to feature in like every one of these highlights. Seriously, it’s all they have and it’s going to get weird.

“It’s 7:30, I’m OK,” our singer tells us while pointing at his wrist, which does not have a watch on it. This guy is terrible at hand gestures. Working the name of the song into the wardrobe is a strength, sure, but hand gestures not so much.

We get our second identical shot of Hrudey decking Paul MacDermid. And with that, we’ve made it through our entire video while using highlights from one single NHL game. Come on, guys. Even the Neil Sheehy-era Capitals know you always use two or three to mix it up.

And because I know you expect me to know these things, I went back and tried to figure out which specific game all these highlights are from. We knew the Kings were playing the Jets in L.A. (home teams wore white back then), Kelly Hrudey was in net, Brent Ashton and Paul MacDermid are in the lineup, and the Kings won (since we see Hrudey pumping his fist at the end of the game). The only game from 1988-89 or 1989-90 that fits that criteria came on December 19, 1989, when Hrudey gave up five goals in a 9-5 Kings win. Wayne Gretzky had six points. Are you sure the goalie’s the guy you want to be highlighting on this team, guys?

I don’t think that’s the kid’s real voice, you guys.

Have a question, suggestion, old YouTube clip, or anything else you’d like to see included in this column? Email Sean at [email protected]. DGB Grab Bag: New Penalty Signals, Cherry Seventh-Best Canadian, and Hrudey on Duty syndicated from http://ift.tt/2ug2Ns6

0 notes

flauntpage · 7 years ago

Text

DGB Grab Bag: New Penalty Signals, Cherry Seventh-Best Canadian, and Hrudey on Duty

The three stars of comedy … will return

Be It Resolved

So let's do that. I've got some suggestions.

Photo by Isaiah J. Downing-USA TODAY Sports

Be it resolved: All these new hand signals go into effect for the 2017-18 season. Please let any referees in your life know so they can start practicing now.

Obscure former player of the week

What has Don Cherry gone and done now?

Yes, that actually happened.

Meanwhile, Canadian readers are like, "Seventh? Huh. That seems a little low."

When you are a bright spot in the history of your country. Photo by Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

Classic YouTube clip breakdown

Who's up for some terrible NHL goaltender-based rap/rock? Good. You're in luck.

All that said, this is a pretty catchy song. You're going to be humming it all day. Consider yourself warned.

OK, almost always.

This is one of those late-80s songs that would be described as rap but may or may not actually be. I feel like the inclusion "whopper of a stopper" kind of disqualifies it right there.

I feel like that may have been the most depressing paragraph in YouTube section history. Can we get back to hockey jokes now? I'm not sure we have a choice. Onwards.

As we're digesting that information, our next highlight is an opposing player on a breakaway just getting blatantly tackled before he can get to Hrudey. Probably the right play.

That player is Brent Ashton, by the way, and he's going to feature in like every one of these highlights. Seriously, it's all they have and it's going to get weird.

I don't think that's the kid's real voice, you guys.

0 notes