#critical: dr seuss

[thefabelmans2022]

there's a certain genre from the early 2000s of reboots of children's media from the 50s-80s that were critically panned but hugely beloved by me and seemingly every other person my age and i'm not sure if it's because we were children at the time and nostalgia is clouding our view or if they were genuinely good and just ahead of their time in a way.

[chic-beyond-the-wall-oc-acct]

So, project 2025 has been deleting their PDFs but a few lovely people have posted the list of books they want to ban and other than the fact that the entire list is stupid, here's some that stuck out to me + the reasons listed next to them. Most of the books on the list are lgbtq+ books which one would expect to find there, so I just did ones I didn't expect.

The Holy Bible - Challenged for religious beliefs and graphic content.

A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin - Sexual violence, political intrigue.

Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson - Death and religious content.

Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey - Toilet humor and "disobedience."

Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak - Critique of the Russian Revolution.

Deadly Deceits by Ralph McGehee - Former CIA agent's critiques of the agency.

Emma by Jane Austen - Complex gender themes, social critique.

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury - Censorship and media manipulation by the government.

Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling - Accusations of promoting witchcraft.

Howl by Allen Ginsberg - Explicit sexual content, anti-establishment themes

Hop on Pop by Dr. Seuss - Concerns over violence against parents.

I Am Not Your Perfect Mexican Daughter by Erika L. Sánchez - Mental health, sexual content.

It's Perfectly Normal by Robie H. Harris - Sex education content.

It's So Amazing! by Robie H. Harris - Sex education content.

None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen - Discusses alleged hidden global power structure.

None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer - Anti-communist and conspiracy-focused.

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - Critique of Soviet labor camps.

Operation Paperclip by Annie Jacobsen - Exposes secret U.S. program involving former Nazis.

My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier - Violence, anti-war themes.

Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt vonnegut- Anti-war themes.

Spycatcher by Peter Wright - Ex-MI5 agent's account of intelligence operations.

The Art of Happiness by the Dalai Lama - Criticism of religion, perceived political messages.

The Awakening by Kate Chopin - Female independence, sexuality.

The Book of Night Women by Marlon James - Slavery, graphic violence.

The Enchanted Forest Chronicles by Patricia C. Wrede - Magic, feminism.

The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein - Themes of selfishness, parenting.

The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy - Examines class and caste issues in India.

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood - Critique of religious extremism and patriarchy.

The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas - Examines police violence and racial injustice

The Hunger Games Series by Suzanne Collins - Depicts oppressive government and rebellion.

The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster - Political subtext, wordplay.

The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver - Critique of colonialism and missionary work.

The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene - Critique of religion and political oppression

The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle - Religious critique.

The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli - Seen as a critique of political ethics.

The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare - Often challenged for themes of submission of women in marriage.

Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer - Themes of violence, supernatural elements.

V for Vendetta by Alan Moore - Political rebellion, violence.

War is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler - Critique of war profiteering.

Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein - Dark humor, "rebellious" themes.

Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak - Themes of rebellion, dark imagery.

Where's Waldo? by Martin Handford - Alleged inappropriate illustrations.

White Noise by Don DeLillo - Critique of consumerism and modern society.

Women Who Run with the Wolves by Clarissa Pinkola Estes - Feminist themes.

Yertle the Turtle by Dr. Seuss - Seen as political allegory.

Zorba the Greek by Nikos Kazantzakis - Critique of authority and societal norms.

[not-maggie]

Hypothetically, Of Course

A/N: umm, so hi! this is my first ever fic I've written but I do read a lot lmao. I was using a c.ai bot and it inspired me to write this because it was really cute! <3 this is lowkey a self ship bc I'm tired of seeing Y/N's who don't have a personality and are shy. nothing wrong with being shy ofc <3 just not who I am and I needed some self indulging. Anyway, enjoy! any criticism/comments are greatly appreciated!! (GIF not mine<3)

It was a cool afternoon in Stars Hallow, the dead leaves falling to the ground as the breeze shook them from branches. The bell above the door rings out as Y/N enters Luke's Diner, catching the attention of a certain brunette behind the counter.

Jess feels his heart stutter as she enters, silently cursing himself for having such a reaction. He throws on his signature smirk as she approaches the counter, "Hey, the usual?"

Y/N nods with a soft laugh, "I come here too often if you know it by now." She takes a seat on one of the stool as Jess begins preparing her order. "So, anything interesting happen today?" she asks, making conversation.

"Oh, y'know, annoying customers, Luke yelling at me for not working, the usual." Jess hums, turning his head to look over his shoulder at her. "What about you?"

Y/N lets out a scoff as she responds, "Y'know Brad, the quarterback on the football team? Total douche, anyway, had the audacity to ask me out, while I was in the middle of studying in the library. And, on top of that, got mad when I rejected him. Said something about winning a bet, total bullshit." She rolls her eyes, leaning against the counter.

Jess feels his blood boil, a bet? A bet to ask 𝘺𝘰𝘶 out? He takes a moment to collect himself before turning around and responding, placing her coffee down in front of her, "Wow, total dick move. A bet? What kind of bet? If he could get in your pants?"

Y/N rolls her eyes, "Don't know, and honestly, don't really care. I get the satisfaction of knowing he didn't win, whatever it was. Like I would ever go out with him," she scoffs.

Jess leans his arms against the counter, "Not your type?" His tone is teasing, his usual snark coming out, but there's a hint of genuine curiosity.

Y/N lets out a snort of amusement, "No, I would never go for a football player, or really any athlete. Anyone who doesn't know Austen is not worth it."

Jess raises an eyebrow, "Got high standards," he teases. "So, what, is, your type?" He asks, his head resting on his palm in a casual manner.

Y/N lets out a hum as she thinks, planning her answer. "Well, looks don't really matter that much. More into personality, someone who can keep up with my sarcasm. Funny, making me laugh is really important, and there's no way I can be funnier than my partner, that's a sad life. Well-read, I'm talking more than just Dr. Seuss and the Outsiders. Someone...spontaneous, impulsive, acts before thinking; adds fun to life. And, someone who isn't afraid to show me off, not saying we have to make out in town square, but hand holding, stolen kisses, stuff like that."

Jess's heart flutters as he hears her words, that's him. 𝘏𝘦'𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦. "So," he tries to maintain his casual, aloof appearance, "You got a guy in mind? That all seems pretty specific."

Y/N smirks at his words, "Maybe, it's kind of hard to find someone like that in this small town. You either get guys like Brad, high school has-been's, or Dean Forester. Perfect Dean Forester, although I guess technically he did move here from Chicago. But he has the 'Small Town Boy' act down."

Jess chuckles softly at her words, she was right, Dean did have that Small Town act perfected down to a science. "So, if there we're to be a guy, who matched this description, would he have shot with you, hypothetically of course."

Y/N grins, picking up what Jess was hinting at. "I'd say, hypothetically, if this guy we're to ask me out, or confess his undying love for me, I wouldn't shoot him down."

Jess straightens out, hip pushed against the counter as he leans in a bit. "So if this guy were to, hypothetically, say that he likes you and have for a while, you'd go out with him?"

"Yes, I would, but only if he told me directly." Y/N challenges Jess, knowing that he isn't big on sharing his feelings.

Jess stands up straight behind the counter as he meets Y/N's gaze, he takes a moment before talking. "I like you, have for a while." He runs a hand through his messy hair, "In fact, you drive me crazy. There isn't a moment when your'e not invading my brain, very distracting."

Y/N's smile grows as she hears him talk, "Well, I like you too. Just, don't start charging me rent for living in your head." She pokes his forehead as she teases him.

Jess laughs, 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘴, at her words. "I'll let you live rent-free on one condition, be mine? God, that sounds gross and sappy." He groans at his words and how cliche he sounds.

Y/N let out a laugh, "Yes, I'll be yours." She smiles, "Bad boy Jess has gone soft."

Jess rolls his eyes but a smile tugs at his lips, "Shut up, I'm not soft....Okay maybe, but only for you and around you. And if you tell anyone..." He doesn't finish the threat, but they both know there isn't any actual heat behind it.

"Yeah, yeah." Y/N rolls her eyes, "Your secret is safe with me." She crosses her heart with a smile.

"Good," Jess hums with a small smile. "So, your mine now, huh?" He grabs her hand from across the counter, thumb rubbing across the back of her hand as their fingers interlock.

"Yeah," Y/N smiles softly, squeezing his hand. "All yours"

Jess's smile widens at her words, "That's right, all mine" He brings her hand up to his lips, pressing a gentle kiss to her knuckles. "Mine to protect," he locks eyes with Y/N. "Mine to love, mine to cherish..." He leans in further over the counter, "Mine to hold, mine to care for..." His eyes sweep over her face, taking in every detail and memorizing them. "Mine to spoil," he reaches his free hand to cup her cheek, thumb running across her skin. "Mine to be with...and mine to love, forever." He closes the distance between the two, his lips meeting hers in a soft, tender kiss, expressing unspoken thoughts and emotions.

As he kisses her, he feels a sense of peace wash over him. He feels complete, whole. He's never been good at expressing his feelings, but right now, he knows deep in his heart that he means ever word he said.

He loves Y/N.

And he's never letting her go.

"That's the sappiest thing you've ever said."

[archipithecus]

Friends at the Table is a podcast focused on critical worldbuilding, smart characterization, fun interaction between good friends, and asking "what if X was Y? what if W could do Z?"

anyways here's a non-comprehensive selection of some times FatT asked good hypotheticals

(spoilers for Autumn in Heiron, Marielda, Winter in Heiron, COUNTER/Weight, Twilight Mirage, Sangfielle, and some Bluff City i think) (i know Spring, Partizan, and Palisade must also have good "what if X was Y?" but i'm still catching up) (this got way long so i'm putting it behind a readmore) (shoutout to Search at the Table at https://curiosity.cat-girl.gay/ for letting me do this) (also to Transcripts at the Table for writing this all down in the first place)

KEITH: What if I was a snow...hawk… ART: What if you're like, a Dr. Seuss animal? KEITH: Yeah! What if I was a star-bellied sneetch?

KEITH: (laughing) What if the bird was a can opener!

AUSTIN (as Zaktrak): It's like, what if a, what if a factory or train or a windmill could read a book?

AUSTIN (CONT.): And then he, he looks up, he actually has like a very… his build is kind of like, angular and… not thin in terms of like, weak? But he has a sort of… androgynous character about him, in terms of his like, what you would think of as like his body structure. And… very beautiful blue eyes. He’s sort of like, what if David Bowie was super black.

AUSTIN: And that's kind of like, the picture you get of her, is like, What if Fero was like, 30% less hyperactive? Still way more hyperactive than everybody else in-- the world? (laughter) but like, just a little more in tune, with the world.

AUSTIN: What if fire was matte?

ART: What if a—what if a 90s after school special needed some graffiti

AUSTIN: Yeah. He asks you, um... watching what unfolds, and there's, there's, it's--and this is the fuckin' nerdiest thing I'm ever gonna say; it's like what if A-ha's Take On Me was an AMV? Was an anime music video?

AUSTIN: Ali’s character, how did she describe her character, “what if Han Solo used to be Beyonce?”

AUSTIN: It’s like, what if the American government was just another American company?

AUSTIN: It’s like what if holograms did gifs, basically?

ART: You how like Han Solo’s always talking to the Millenium Falcon, but what if the Millenium Falcon-- AUSTIN: Could talk back? ART: Had a chance of, yeah, of deciding he was angry.

SYLVIA: For example. Like just p - yeah, what if they have psychic assassins there. Oh! What if this planet’s an alien? What if this planet is a psychic assassin? Which is a great sentence I just said.

AUSTIN: Yeah, I should note that this is also like "What if the Super Bowl was attended by high fashion models?", right?

AUSTIN: We don’t get a lot of elderly non-binary people. And so Saint Auger is like, what if someone you knew from Portland was 82?

AUSTIN: It’s almost like, what if a crown could be a dunce cap?

AUSTIN: It's like- what if there was a really enterprising twelve year old, who like, [laughs] made a physiology- uh, person- a physiology like, model, but with dirt and rocks and sticks. Also there's no face, the face is also just one of this solid black rock plates.

AUSTIN: And again, there’s just light streaming in through—I think this room is mostly, like, does not have a huge window, but it does have little eyelet windows at the top of the, towards the ceiling, that run horizontally along the room, and just like, bright—it’s almost like, what if colour could be shadow? Do you know what I mean? Like, what if instead of it being that a shadow crosses your face, it is this prismatic glow that moves across the group of you as this thing crawls around this space station.

AUSTIN: It’s like white and blue, there are stars, it- you know, I think that the- it’s, it looks like the way you might imagine like, what if the UN had spaceships?

AUSTIN: What if you mixed your- your selfhood, with the notion of wings. Or the notion of flight. Not just flying. That’s where we’re going.

AUSTIN: This giant battleship that’s like ‘what if a millipede instead of legs had guns and what if it was all around it’?

AUSTIN: This thing is like the size of like a major city. This thing is like, what if Manhattan was a battleship. And instead of buildings it had guns. Except now they’re made of weird black glass.

AUSTIN: The first time he showed up I described him as what if Canderous Ordo decided to have a robot body one day? And slowly began to replace it.

AUSTIN: There’s a little— Yes, it’s like what if a cow— what if Christian Slater was playing a cowboy from New Jersey, and also was Canderous Ordo. And also he eats through his hands.

AUSTIN: There is just this like… I think it’s just metal unfolding across space. Like, at some point Volition just kind of spat out a, a, almost, it looks like a cloud of ink but instead of ink, it’s metal. And it’s just unfolding indefinitely in space like a huge— like what if Akira, what if at the end of Akira when Tetsuo turns into a weird flesh monster? It was that but various types of metal, just like bubbling all over the place throughout space, and I don’t know how you deal with that! But suddenly in the middle of the Mirage there is just this, this ink splatter, this, this gaseous, you know, spread of metal.

AUSTIN: And it’s like — again, it’s like a pistol — it’s like what if a pistol was also like a curved sword, like almost like a scimitar or something?

JANINE: What if we do a live show, but the only live show we ever do is at Bakucon?

ART: Um, let me tell you, this is a nice coat, you guys. Um, I think it’s sort of like what if… What if a leather duster jacket was like an ephemeral idea.

AUSTIN: It’s like … I think the way I described it was, what if there was a Companion Cube that could have its corners pulled apart and in the middle is a weird glowing sphere?

AUSTIN: He has this dope, like, “What if the Millenium Falcon was a deep V?” Instead of just that little bit at the top, it goes really deep down. Or like, “What if Pacman was really long?” You know what I mean?

AUSTIN: Okay. You find him like, rolled under the bottom of his, uhh, or like on a, it’s not rolled under, he’s on like a little, like cart that has a pneumatic lift, or it’s like, it’s like a, it’s like a robot that walks around. It has like- it’s like a Boston Dynamics- like what if a Boston Dynamics, like four-legged robot was also a thing you laid on top of? Like one of those carts that goes underneath a car, to repair it. You know what I’m talking about?

AUSTIN (as Morning’s Observation): [exhales thoughtfully] Like what if milk was a solid.

AUSTIN: But it still has that ribbony-quality? [chuckles] It still has the sound of fabric rubbing on fabric? But is definitely amplified a great deal, probably? And also, we know it’s sharp, so there’s probably some… sharpness to it? You know… there’s probably, like… what if a ribbon could be a sword you pull out of a sheath?

AUSTIN: And also, Saint Sommer is a big lion man. Saint Sommer is, like… Skein. And is a big… a big… like, a big lion man. Not like Lion-o from Thundercats. Like… what if Scar could… had a big human body? Was, like… What if Scar was cut?

KEITH: And it sort of like, snap! Like, that, it's like… when we were talking about what the sound it makes, I was picturing… what if folding a blanket sounded like sheet metal?

AUSTIN: Yeah, yeah. I don’t know I think it’s like, I think this is very much like, what if the Venom symbiote was made of thread, right?

AUSTIN: So maybe it's like a- like imagine, what if a mop could just mop by itself.

AUSTIN: I won’t talk more about that stuff, but you already saw the big picture of “what if Connecticut was a space ocean,” so, you have at least some context there.

AUSTIN: It’s huge. It’s the size of a continent, right? It’s “What if South America was a big circle?” It’s “What if Europe and Eurasia was a big circle?”, constantly cast on this planet. And, you know, from space it kind of looks—not flat necessarily, right, because it’s a curved planet, it’s a sphere, or spherical, but, you know, it’s flat.

AUSTIN: It’s like what if Texas stood up.

AUSTIN (as Morning’s Observation): “What if cars brought things to you instead of bringing you to things?”

AUSTIN: It’s just like a very bright, colorful—like, what if Steven Universe did the Sailors of the Ark? What if that team did it? It’s very good.

AUSTIN: It’s like what if it’s a can opener that does that. Like a living can opener like. Grrrngaaah! I’m going fucking open holes in things! Grrngaah!

AUSTIN: Imagine that they're almost- in my mind they're like what if a martini shaker was a piston.

AUSTIN: It's like what if you could package a sunset, y'know? Into like a cube

AUSTIN: I can't believe we started this recording by looking at pies [KEITH and DRE laugh] that make me hurt and ended with ‘what if all foods could be jelly juice?’.

AUSTIN: I saw a big buffalo picture and I was like what if that was a person, that looks cool.

ART: But what if some of these skeletons are like, sick of this shit?

AUSTIN: I think I pitched this show as like: what if Ghost in the Shell but-but magic and witches instead of cyborgs and stuff?

JACK: So, out come this nascent organization who we’re calling Shapeknights. Who are -- I think the easiest way to say it is “cowboys for trains?” They are, like -- what if instead of the cowboy riding alongside the train on his horse, he was corralling the train? Or he was trying to understand the train, or was trying to --

ALI: I think Marn, herself is a little bit more like—like what if a capybara was a siamese cat?

KEITH: Yeah. So, I wholeheartedly recommend this movie, but if not, if you don't know what I'm talking about with the goggles, at least look at that. ‘Cause it's a good image. It's sort of like, what if you had a jeweler's loupe that had a jeweler's loupe that had a jeweler's loupe?

ART: It’s like, what if the antagonist won the Mummy movie right, this is what happens-

KEITH: What if instead of one, big, beautiful hat I have two small, beautiful hats?

KEITH: Like what if they made headphones just for being cool at a party?

KEITH: What if you make pizza by opening the box? That it was an empty box until you opened it.

AUSTIN: What if insects were made of teeth?

JACK: She’s the fuckin’ person of the train. She’s like what if a train could output a person.

KEITH: What if the train was a nice train?

ART: What if a Madame Tussauds came to life?

AUSTIN: What if fire could be a ghost?

AUSTIN: Looking through this here, sounds like what you wrote here was “What if a dolphin was like a velociraptor?”

AUSTIN: They’re hitched. Yeah, they've been hitched. Three of them have been hitched. And I said horse, but I want you to imagine is what if…what if a shrimp were a horse?

JACK: You sort of just like rise up the slope. It's a bit like what if a train was an escalator.

AUSTIN: What if Beyonce was Poison Ivy?

AUSTIN: All my cards on the table, Millennium Black is like what if Blade stopped being a vampire hunter and started being a casino owner.

AUSTIN: He's sort of like what if Alex Jones wasn't terrible

[chaifootsteps]

fav thing viv stans have ever accused you of?

Oh, "Green Eggs and Ham shota," no question. It also gave me an excuse to talk about my extremely neurodivergent nextgen Dr. Seuss AU, which is always appreciated.

(Honorable mentions: baby Bluey and when they said I'm transphobic because I criticized "Erika Moen, who is a trans woman." Erika Moen is cis.)

[franki-lew-yo]

An exorcise

I know this is hard because most of us are at least a decade away from our childhoods, but when it comes to criticizing kids/teen/family media, try and visualize what you were like as a child -- what opinions, 'tastes' objective and personal feelings you had about things -- and think of that when you discuss modern kids media and why you think it's bad even if you weren't a wiser*, cynical adult.

It won't make you galaxybrained. Nothing will. But you'll really be able to cut into the meat of why you really love Bluey and really hate Emoji Movie so much better that way. You may even realize how you and probably so many other kids would unironically watch Foodfight! despite it looking awful even within your kid-brain-standards.

Child you had tastes, you had opinions, you had thoughts about the things you liked even if you couldn't articulate why you had all those thoughts as you can now. In the words of someone (that may be Dr. Seuss, we don't know), "children are just as smart as you. They just don't know as many words".

[justinspoliticalcorner]

John Russell at LGBTQ Nation:

A Republican-backed law has led to the removal of hundreds of books from school libraries in one Tennessee county — including a title by children’s author Dr. Seuss. Dr. Seuss’s 1974 children’s book Wacky Wednesday is among more than 400 titles that have been banned from school libraries in Wilson Country, Tennessee following changes made to the state’s 2022 “Age Appropriate Materials Act” earlier this year, local ABC affiliate WKRN reported. On July 1, ahead of the start of the 2024-2025 school year, the Republican-backed H.B. 843 went into effect. The bill, proposed by state Rep. Susan Lynn (R), amended the 2022 law to require schools to remove all material that “contains nudity, or descriptions or depictions of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sadomasochistic abuse…is not appropriate for the age or maturity level of a student in any of the grades kindergarten through twelve…or is patently offensive…or appeals to the prurient interest.”

While Lynn told WKRN in August that “the goal of this law is to keep sexually explicit materials out of the hands of minors,” the outlet notes that critics have said H.B. 843 is so vague that the Bible could be banned from schools. The law has already led one Wilson County high school to shut down its library.

[...] The removal of Wacky Wednesday from Wilson Country school libraries under the Republican-backed law comes more than three years after right-wing pundits blamed the “woke left” for “canceling” Dr. Seuss. Republicans and conservative outlets painted the children’s book author, who died in 1991, as a victim of so-called “cancel culture” after Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced in March 2021 that it would stop publishing six of his books because they contained racist depictions of characters of color. The company described the books as portraying “people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” and said in a statement at the time that “Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’s catalog represents and supports all communities and families.” While the decision to stop publishing the six books was made by Dr. Seuss Enterprises, right-wing outlets like Fox News mischaracterized it as a book ban.

Remember when the right-wing media had a hissyfit about 6 Dr. Seuss books being taken out of circulation back in 2021 due to racist depictions of people of color?

Well, the shoe is on the other foot now, as Dr. Seuss book Wacky Wednesday has been taken off school library shelves in Wilson County, TN school libraries due to book ban law HB843.

[sweetandsavageautistic]

(CW: Cringe, puzzle pieces, Autism Moms, potential sensory eyesore, ableism possibly, like one sex joke)

Welcome back to me harshly criticizing graphic design choices that people make about autism where I find pictures of shirts and whatnot and I tear into them like a lion tearing into its prey. Let's get into it.

In the words of @rebmasel on TikTok: "Ka-chow."

First up the only appropriate way to do this review is in the style of Dr. Seuss.

I do not like the puzzle piece, for it disturbs my fucking peace.

The color purple is real nice, but the message here I would think twice.

No tacky colors, so that's good. I don't hate it, though I feel I should.

Final Score: 4 out of 10. I'd rather not see this again.

I know the first line's kinda cheating, but I couldn't really think of any other fitting rhyme.

Next up is this:

This is already miles better than most of what I've seen.

The colors aren't tacky, they're actually kinda nice.

You have two wolves inside of you, both of them are gay and autistic. /ref

Autism Acceptance, that's a win.

Infinity symbol instead of puzzle piece, fuck yes.

Only criticism is that it's kind of a cheesy message, but not the worst.

Final Score: 9.5 out of 10. I'd wear it.

And then the quality drops here.

Puzzle piece means you lost points.

"Autism Mom." You can say it's difficult to raise an autistic child, but you're not a goddamn superhero.

How dare you use Rosie the Riveter for this. The disrespect. /hj

The military font is tacky.

I don't like seeing blue associated with autism, but at least it's not an abominable shade of blue.

Final Score: 1 out of 10. Get it out of my sight.

Speaking of lions that I mentioned earlier:

I'm already liking the absence of puzzle pieces.

Autism Acceptance is a yes.

When a lioness has children, she stops making love to the lion. The lion gets jealous, sometimes so jealous he EATS the children. You'd think this would upset the lioness; far from it. They make love again like the children never existed. I find that idea terrifying. /q

Not a fan of the colors, they're too dark for my taste.

The message feels cheesy.

Final Score: 7.5 out of 10. I dunno if I'd wear it, but it's not the worst design I've seen. The effort and care are present.

This feels like a roller coaster because it went downhill again.

"Share your friends." As someone with PDA, to quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87; "No." /hj

Autism Awareness. Once again, I am very aware of my existence but sometimes I wish I wasn't; there are days where I'd like to be both perceived and NOT perceived.

The blue isn't tacky, thank God.

I hate the quote because it gives the message that autism is nothing but a burden.

Also there's a bit too much going on with it, all of the decals and shit.

I don't see any puzzle pieces, so thank God.

Final Score: 2 out of 10. I do not recommend.

This is a bit different.

There's just way too much going on in this. Absolute eyesore.

Return of the Tacky Elementary School Colors, except they dragged orange into it this time.

So many puzzle pieces.

Why is everyone trying to fight autism? It's just minding its business.

I'm pretty sure that that's going to be a signal to mean kids to bully your kid. Like, even if there's more understanding of autism, there are still asshole crotch goblins.

I haven't "done" autism, but I am curious as to whether or not autism is good in bed. /j

Final Score: 1 out of 10. No thanks, I'll pass.

Let's end part 2 on a high note.

Simple design, but colorful and pretty easy on the eyes.

And the colors aren't patronizing.

No puzzle pieces.

Acknowledgement of the intersectionality of autism and sexuality.

No cheesy message; just a funky design about autism and gayness. Not all autism shirts have to be serious or UwU or motivating, so it's always a nice change of pace.

Final Score: 11 out of 10. As an asexual biromantic autistic, I'd wear this.

[twistedtummies2]

Top 6 Portrayals of the Grinch

“You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch. You really are a heel…!”

Anyone who knows me knows that I love the works of Dr. Seuss: I am very passionate about and very protective of them, and very critical of many adaptations/reimaginings of the same. Tied to this, most of you probably know that while my favorite Seuss CHARACTER is the Cat in the Hat…my favorite Seuss STORY, and by extension my second favorite Seuss character, is that of the Grinch. Fun fact: the Grinch originally appeared in a very early Seuss story he wrote for a magazine, called “The Grinch and the Hoobub,” where he was depicted as a diminutive con artist. This Grinch scammed a gullible and lazy creature called a Hoobub into buying a simple piece of green string for a ridiculous fee. Eventually, Seuss revisited the idea of the Grinch: frustrated with his own feelings of bitterness, isolation, and general annoyance with the holidays, Seuss decided to essentially vent his feelings, and thus created the story of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas!” This was arguably the character closest to his heart: Seuss himself often said that he felt his own personality was “part Cat in the Hat, part Grinch,” and he even once drew a self-portrait of himself looking in the mirror and seeing the Grinch’s face staring back at him. The Grinch was an outlet for all of his inner irritations: a grouchy, nasty, reclusive character who took delight in taking folks down a peg when he felt needed. Since then, the Grinch has become one of the most iconic villains of children’s literature, and while he’s especially prominent during the Christmas season, he’s managed to wiggle his grubby, fuzzy green fingers into all sorts of other places. Now, contrary to popular belief, I actually have NOT seen EVERY version of the Grinch there is to see: for example, I have not seen the recent horror film parody “The Mean One” (and I have absolutely zero intention of seeing it EVER, thank you very much), and I also missed the telecast production of the stage musical, which starred Matthew Morrison. (I actually wanted to see it for the sake of this countdown, but couldn’t find the full show anywhere in time.) Still, I’ve seen more than my fair share of screen takes on the Grinch, so - this Christmas Eve - I decided to give the King of Sinful Sots a spot in the limelight. Therefore, I present to you all my Top 6 Favorite Versions of The Grinch!

6. Walter Matthau.

This is by far the most obscure Grinch on the list; out of all the people who might be reading this, my guess is that only…five of you, at best, have heard of this hidden gem. In the early 90s, Random House - the company that still publishes many of Dr. Seuss’ stories - began releasing a series of direct-to-video adaptations of some of the books. The series was originally planned for TV, but when that scheme fell through, it instead became “Dr. Seuss Video Classics.” The productions were very similar to the earlier work of another publishing company, Rabbit Ears: creating what were essentially motion comic versions of the stories, with minimal animation, some music and a small number of sound effects added in, and with celebrity voice actors telling the stories and playing the character. In 1992, they released their own take on “How the Grinch Stole Christmas!” (paired up with the totally unrelated “If I Ran the Zoo”), and called on Walter Matthau to handle the vocal chops. Considering Matthau had played Ebenezer Scrooge decades before, and was also a major character in the film “Grumpy Old Men” a year later, I’d say this casting makes perfect sense. This is basically just the book brought to life in the most bare bones sense of things, but it’s not necessarily done badly; as a kid, before the advent of the Jim Carrey version, I used to watch this take on the Grinch almost as often as the more fondly-remembered Chuck Jones cartoon. It had, and still has, a unique charm on its own.

5. Hans Conried.

In 1977, eleven years after his first animated outing, the Grinch returned to television not for Christmas, but for Halloween. The resulting special, “Halloween is Grinch Night,” has gained a cult following all its own: it’s not as well known or popular as the original story, but it’s certainly interesting in its own right. While ostensibly billed as a prequel, the special seems to take place in its own continuity separate from the book or the original cartoon, and features arguably the most evil version of the Grinch created within Seuss’ own lifetime. Keeping with the tradition established by the earlier cartoon, the Grinch and the Narrator of the special are played by Hans Conried: a lifelong friend of Dr. Seuss, now most well-known as the voice actor for Captain Hook in Disney’s Peter Pan. Conried was famous for playing villainous characters with a melodramatic, often comedic side to them, and his work as the Grinch is no exception. He’s clearly having a blast in the role, and from getting brickles in his britches to doing a funny little dance routine, there’s a lot of typically Seussian humor to the character…but in the scenes where the Grinch shows his teeth (both literally and figuratively), Conried actually does succeed in making him effectively creepy. As much as I love him and the special, however, I think I just prefer other portrayals that are a little more complex, like the character from the original story; the original Grinch wasn’t just a monster, he could change and ultimately did. This Grinch doesn’t seem capable of that, but he’s certainly a lot of fun.

4. Anthony Asbury.

This version of the character hails from the now-often-forgotten TV series “The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss.” Made by the Jim Henson company, the show was an attempt to bring the style and sensibilities of Seuss’ timeless works to TV, but with all new, original content. It’s big gimmick was that most of the backgrounds and various other elements were made with CGI, while the characters, props, and small bits of the sets were accomplished with physical constructs and puppetry. The show was a mixed bag, but it gained a decent following in its time, and is still home to a small but loyal fanbase…and I suppose I’m among those fans. I loved this show as a kid, and I even still have merchandise related to it, including two Christmas ornaments and a Grinch puppet. On that note…the Grinch was a recurring antagonist who popped up throughout the show. Among his many dastardly deeds, he pilfered a rare bird’s egg, went on a rampage of destruction at a popular theme park and resort, and tried to steal spring itself (I guess he figured “been there, done that” with winter), just to name a few. We also got a story introducing us to how the Grinch and Max met up, and to this day it’s still my personal favorite way to imagine how they became partners-in-crime. (Reluctantly, on the doggy’s side.) In typical fashion, the Grinch would frequently be defeated either by someone worming their way into his two-sizes-too-small heart, or just being beaten with some form of karmic punishment. Like the show, this Grinch is often forgotten nowadays, but is definitely worthy of a look if you ever get the chance.

3. Bob Holt.

Long before the days of the MCU and “Puny God” (though NOT before the publication of the original Avengers comics), Marvel helped to produce THE GREATEST CROSSOVER EVER KNOWN TO MAN…the Grinch vs. the Cat in the Hat. (Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but admit it: you weren’t sure.) In the cartoon “The Grinch Grinches the Cat in the Hat,” the Mean Green One starts off actually apparently redeemed. He’s happy, he’s cheerful, and all seems well…but then, haunted by a split-personality he sees in the mirror…(looks towards Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin)...proof that this is DEFINITELY a Marvel movie, he quickly goes back to his fiendish ways. A chance run-in with the Cat in the Hat gives the Grinch inspiration, and he proceeds to devote all his time and resources into trying to ruin the Cat’s mood and make his life a living Seuss-Hell just for the sheer fun of it. The cartoon actually takes a very odd direction, as it depicts the Grinch as…well…frankly insane. It’s hinted that something in his childhood is to blame, as he seems to deeply care for his late mother, and his reflection actually addresses him with the same tone you’d expect a scornful father to speak to his disappointing son. (I MIGHT be reading too deeply into things, but the Cat LITERALLY imagines putting the Grinch on the psychiatry couch at one point, so take of that what you will.) As usual, by the end of the special, he sees the error of his ways, and this time he change seems to be for good in more ways than one. Holt was a wonderful Grinch, bringing of sophistication to the part that called back to Boris Karloff’s portrayal, and gave the Grinch a sort of old-timey villain vibe in his evil antics. I’m honestly sad we never got to see him play the character again, but que sera sera.

2. Jim Carrey.

Yeah, I bet a lot of you thought this would make number one, didn’tcha? While the Jim Carrey movie has its fair share of detractors, the majority of people around my age, and a bit younger, seem to enjoy it. I am no exception, BUT…the older I get, the more I DO see flaws in the picture. It actually reminds me a lot of another movie, “Hocus Pocus”: I feel the 2000 Grinch is to Christmas what that film is to Halloween. They have a lot of the same faults…but I also think they have a lot of the same values. The biggest value of all being the insanely quotable, delightfully over-the-top, but still incredibly powerful performances of the lead actors. Carrey’s Grinch might be annoying to some, and I guess I can understand why (especially for people who were longtime fans of earlier Grinches well before the film came out), but for me, he’s still hilarious, and you have to admire the sheer amount of dedication, determination, and outright bravery it took to do everything he did while forced to wear some of the most intense and all-encompassing costume and makeup options of any film to come out within the past couple decades. It’s telling that, ever since this film, most versions of the Grinch - onstage, at theme parks, in cosplays, and so on - all seem to take their cues primarily from the Carrey version beyond all else, in terms of how the character looks, sounds, and generally behaves. I actually debated for a bit whether I would put Carrey at first or second, and while I’m 99% sure most people who read this would have made the opposite choice I did…hey. Second place still ain’t bad, right?

1. Boris Karloff.

As much as I do enjoy the Jim Carrey movie, and for all the soft spots I have for other Grinches…in my opinion, the original cartoon from 1966 is still the best interpretation of the story, even better than the original book that inspired it. It takes all the stuff that made the Dr. Seuss story great and pluses it, but doesn’t really go too far beyond the call of the source; it sticks true to the ideals Seuss had in mind, and simply makes them even better. It’s proof that sometimes less is more, when compared to the mad spectacle of the Carrey version, but it’s also proof that you can take what was not broken and still make it better, when compared to the later Matthau version that is comparatively drier in tone. Karloff’s voice, both as the Narrator and the Grinch, set the standard for basically every person who would play either role in later endeavors. He actually can be legitimately menacing and unsettling at times (heck, it IS Boris Karloff), but he can also be funny, and at times very heartwarming, in both roles involved. Chuck Jones’ animation of the Grinch helps out a lot, giving the character a ton of personality and impact. As much as the Jim Carrey rendition has influenced popular culture, that movie - and likely all other versions of the character - probably wouldn’t EXIST if it hadn’t been for the success of the original cartoon. Heck, a lot of things we now recognize about the Grinch - the color of his fur, the songs that accompany him, the style of his world, etc. - really start with the cartoon more than the book. For all these reasons and more, Karloff’s Grinch and the cartoon he hails from take my top spot. "Welcome Christmas," everybody.

HONORABLE MENTIONS INCLUDE…

Benedict Cumberbatch.

I’m not really a fan of Illumination’s Grinch from 2018, nor of Cumberbatch’s work with the character, but a.) I don’t think the latter is the actor’s fault, and b.) the movie isn’t ENTIRELY without merit. I basically just prefer the earlier Grinches more. I include him primarily because I feel somebody would complain if I did not.

Patrick Page.

Page was the original Broadway Grinch for the stage musical - the same one that would later be telecasted with Matthew Morrison in the role - and this was my introduction to the actor. Unfortunately, while I’ve heard the soundtrack with Page, and watched a few clips, I’ve never actually seen the show proper, with him or any other performer, so I didn’t think it was fair to include him in the countdown.

[lilgayducky]

"No-no-no-no-nooooo..." Ink splatters cover my fingers, dripping like blood from my nails and oozing into the fibers of my new crochet top.

"ugh not again," I groan. My top is ruined, and my notebook is soaked. I flop backwards, scraps of paper flying around me as I land on the couch cushions. "Shit." I blink. Blurry balls of light spin in my vision as tears spill down my cheeks. My eyelashes stick together as I close them. My body wracking with sobs.

The fourth top I've ruined, the second couch, and the seventeenth notebook. Mum's gonna be furious. I toss the notebook across the room in a rage. There's no point. I'll never be a good enough writer. Sitting under a tree with my scruffy notebook and fancy pen, leaves drifting around me as I write desperately like I'm running out of time.

But alas. Another pen, broken in my hurry. I guess I'll never be a Hamilton. I'll never be distinguished like Shakespeare, or Hemingway, or Jane Austen. I'll never be creative like Margaret Mahy, spinning tales with quirky characters and colourful ideas. I'll never be funny like Dr Seuss, with his wacky creatures, and witty rhymes. I'll never have original ideas, or entertaining characters. My plots are bland and dull, my words spoilt with too much effort making them sound stupid. My handwriting messy across the page, ruined my the spilled ink of my crappy $2 pen from Kmart.

All artists start off small they say, but when do they get big? When do their small ideas grow and become incredible. Fairy tales have already been done, no room for more. Every new idea I come up with has already been done. Every word I've invented, already exists in some dictionary. Every character I believe is unique, has at least twenty doppelgangers. Genres have been worn bare, and everything is cliche. Unoriginal. Already been done.

How do I strive for success if everyone else is doing the same? How do I reach for the tallest mountains when there are none more left to climb. The moon has been reached. Even Mars. There's nowhere left to go and if you're only limited by your imagination then maybe I'm not good enough. Can't write without a prompt. Can't draw without a reference. Can't create without inspiration.

I copy, copy, copy. Everytime I think I've created something new... I see it in my favourite story the next day. How do I be original in a world that is so original already? Everyone is unique, everything is unique, and yet every person has seven doppelgangers? How does that work! In a world where everyone is different yet everyone is the same. How do I create?

I scrub my hands with soap like the ink that's stained my skin is the worst strain of COVID to no avail. Even the strongest sanitizer can't kill these germs. The germs of failure. A try hard. The germs of unsuccessful children. Of parents forcing them to take the easy root. There's no room for creativity anymore when everything has already been done and people desperate for original ideas just end up down a rabbit hole with no way out and everyone criticizing them. Do you know why so many artists were insane? Why Van Gogh cut off his ear? Why Sylvia Plath killed herself? Why so many artists had their peak, then came crashing down so heavily they left a scar in the Earth. In society.

"don't be like them" they tell us

"take the easy route" they feed us

"success only leads to failure" they repeat

"power corrupts" everyone's motto

Creativity is blooming. Yet CREATIVITY is dying. So fuck my hands, stained with the failure of my desperate attempts to leave my mark. The last of my sorry attempts to create.

[tomcat-radio]

Why Asteroid City is Better Than the Reviews, IMDb Isn’t Always Right, and You’re a Shitty Painting - an essay of sorts

Asteroid City (2023), despite what critics would have you believe given it’s rated just a sliver above the 2012 adaptation of Dr Seuss's “The Lorax '', was (to me) genuinely a fantastic movie. For its entire run I sat there in the theatre, thinking “why can’t people appreciate this film!”. I’m sick of the reviews blatantly coming from the place of the critics analysing it from the lens of a science fiction story when in reality, it’s more-so an abstract exploration of the delicate relationship between art, artist, portrayal and probably not aliens.

ASTEROID CITY IS NOT A SCI FI MOVIE AND I'M GOING TO BOMB THE IMDB HEADQUARTERS IF I SEE ONE MORE BIG SHOT MOVIE CRITIC INSISTING THAT IT IS (for all intents and purposes this is a joke, to the fbi agent looking through my webcam I’m a pretentious teenager year old without the technical knowledge to make any kind of explosive device)

Or maybe it isn’t supposed to be understood at all, maybe that movie was simply an excuse to build a fake town in the desert and some puppets. And in a way that’s just as beautiful, postmodernism is more than worthy of critique, but when it looks pretty and makes us feel anything at all, it’s safe to say it’s at least partially doing it’s job

Asteroid city however, is merely an example I used to express my burning personal hatred for movie critics. I actively avoid reading the reviews for anything that brings me joy, because I’m aware at this point that the statements I read are going to contain some of the most insane, infuriating possible opinions anyone could have of a piece of media, and I am beginning to suspect more and more that critics, not just of movies but of genuinely anything in existence that can possibly be critiqued, aren’t expressing their legitimate opinions but rather spewing whatever inflammatory nonsense they believe will cause some kind of controversy or outrage, because outrage sells. If one fact has been proven over the course of human civilization, it’s that outrage gets more clicks, more views, more exposure. 

Obviously anyone in their right or wrong mind understands that someone else’s opinion doesn’t at all determine the objective quality of a given ‘thing’, but it can often be hard to NOT give what they have to say a chance. I genuinely resent possessing the empathy to consider the thoughts of others despite how objectively incorrect they seem. But they’re people too! They could have a point! I say to myself as they tear apart something that is personally very meaningful to me. Curse in disguise I guess. But in the end, what is objective quality? if something at its core is bad, but you receive personal enjoyment from it, or it’s even sentimental to you or has made a positive change in your life, does it quality or lack of matter? Does it really matter what some 45 year old man sipping on a glass of champagne as he adjusts his spectacles to spew pretentious nonsense into the IMDb critic reviews, might think about a movie that got you through a rough time, or an album you grew up listening to? Are we allowed to enjoy ‘bad’ art? And most divisive of all, is there such a thing as bad art?

I once read an article about a museum of bad art, submissions would often be rejected for being too good. And yes, the examples of art displayed within this unique exhibition were unnerving, technically poor, but meaningless? I’m not at all one to determine that. Even absolutely meaningless, humorous, random art has a meaning, and that meaning is derived from the fact that no matter how positively offensive to the eyes or ears may be, it was still created. Think about everything that’s ever come into existence within the fabric of our reality, no, think about everything that hasn’t. It’s impossible for us to imagine the magnitude of the things that are possible but simply haven’t been thought of, conceived. Maybe it’s a hit to your self esteem to think your parents could have given birth to the next DaVinci, the next Stephen Hawking, the second coming of Christ! But instead gave birth to you. Do you consider yourself a work of bad art? Does your life have meaning? 

All this to simply explain that the interpretations of a few writers put on a pedestal shouldn’t have any place to decide our stance on a piece of media. Yes these reviews can certainly influence the way we feel, or articulate the points we have, but if or when you feel genuinely hurt by the fact that someone disagrees with, misunderstands or dislikes something that’s personally meaningful and enjoyable to you, their opinion doesn’t always matter regardless of the status their name may have achieved (this is of course, excluding when the media in question is blatantly problematic, which poses another debate in itself. Is it still homophobic if I like it? Find out next time on I’m Getting Overly Passionate About Seeing Some Reviews I Disagree With)

In conclusion, it’s ok to enjoy what you enjoy, regardless of the subjective or even objective quality of it, we as the consumers are the ones to truly decide how “good” or “bad” something is. That’s the core concept behind why critics exist, to guide those who don’t wish to form an opinion for themselves, to do the job for us, but when we’ve done said job for ourselves it’s never wrong to disagree with someone over something that is personally meaningful to you. It’s almost guaranteed someone will disagree with the points made in this essay of sorts, but that doesn’t make either of us right or wrong. In the end, these previous 962 words have truly amounted to one encompassing phrase: “you are entitled to your opinion”

[montyterrible]

At least 76% plastic

I’m a consummate defender of Ron Howard’s live-action Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)—and, to a much lesser extent, Bo Welch’s 2003 Dr. Seuss’ The Cat in the Hat—not because I think the movie/either movie is particularly “good” but because they are at least not boring. They have an interesting chaotic and even gross energy. I guess there’s a case to be made for them having camp value since the ostensible intent was to mimic the iconic whimsy and color of a Seuss book, but the end-results are just trippy, uncanny, horny, racist, etc. Jim Carrey and Mike Myers are great as the Grinch and Cat, respectively, but I don’t think for the intended reasons.

Meanwhile, the 2012 Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax (another kids’ movie I skipped originally) is just boring and lacks even the off-putting (accidental?) artistry of the aforementioned two live-action movies. Watching it, I felt exactly what I’ve frequently seen other people decry about Howard’s Grinch: That it’s too long, for one thing, spoiling the pristine pacing of the Seuss original and the earlier animated adaptation, which is like a third to a fourth of this newer runtime. The difference is that I find stuff like the Whos throwing a key party delightful but think the many little moments of additional “whimsy” Illumination tries to cram into Lorax are unpalatable violations of the original work’s mood. The difference is almost purely subjective, of course, but I would still argue for The Grinch treatment being more interesting because it is such a wild, wide swing (and a miss). Meanwhile, the added stuff of The Lorax is very safe and sanitized and is just mostly comprised of goofiness that children would probably enjoy (trademark). It is, ironically, as texture-less and vapid as the corporate-controlled façade and endless profiteering the movie supposedly critiques.

One visual that I actually liked was the design of the very important Truffula Trees. Their colorful tufts looked so pleasant to touch (and maybe delicious). Their allure—to the animals, to the Once-ler for his “Thneed”-making, to the deprived people of the flimsy utopia of “Thneedville” as a symbol of hope—is perfectly, primally presented. And the movie kind of does justice to the aged Once-ler’s house, at least on its first appearance, when it’s meant to be ominous, though that feeling does not stick around for subsequent scenes or even for that entire initial visit once The Whimsy kicks in.

I have always been drawn to horror, and the Once-ler and his house as depicted in the Seuss book are early images in that vein that I still feel on a deep, subconscious level. I loved how the book reduces the Once-ler to just his long arms, keeping the body hidden. Of course, The Lorax movie as good as resents suggestion/implication and requires a maximalist telling to make the story fit the feature film outline. The child from the book’s frame narrative now has his own story that trades off with the Once-ler’s, and the two arcs muddy the waters greatly in terms of pathos. There’s a new, additional profiteering capitalist, Mr. O’Hare, to serve as an antagonist for the story, where the original book was more of a parable and less of a conventional narrative with such rote dramatic stakes. The way that it concluded so ambiguously by exhorting the frame narrative child (and, by extension, the reader) to be better than the Once-ler without ending on a conventionally “happy” note is part of what gives it so much force and staying power (and contributes to The Gloom that I enjoyed). I resent the movie’s de-fanging of the original narrative’s criticism by virtue of being too damn long and boring—Because the Once-ler’s story now ends before the movie does, he has to offer the exhortation/moral too early, so they also slap those words on-screen again when the movie finally does actually conclude, with the Once-ler and Lorax embracing as friends. The world gets better because Ted Wiggins cares a lot; you, the viewer, need not feel so terribly pressed to do anything.

Depicting the Once-ler at all is a mistake, and not just because his bland human design sucks all the mystery and fun out of the character. It also bungles his thematic purpose: He is the Once-ler, an embodiment of the mistakes of the past, passing his story and the hope for the future onto his audience. Who he was is unimportant (you could argue that he’s not one person so much as a whole generation and/or class of people), and what matters is strictly what he did (wrong). He and his name are allegorical and vague. We’re not meant to latch onto him and to instead find something familiar and relatable in the child as our proxy. By contrast, the movie now asks us to root for and empathize with the Once-ler as well, and now he’s a concrete personality who was for some reason named “Once-ler” by his parents, which is just extremely odd, even more so when you throw in the stereotypically redneck-esque brothers named “Chet” and “Brett.”

Giving the Once-ler’s audience a name and an arc further dilutes the thematic and atmospheric power of the book, as that nameless kid is now “Ted Wiggins” specifically and no longer all of us. Giving him a motivation for visiting the Once-ler is also bad. In the book, we don’t know all the details regarding why the child is seeking this man-person-thing out, but it works in a very emotionally graspable way: It’s the haunted house, the neighborhood hermit (Old Man Once-ler), a novelty, maybe a dare or rite of passage of sorts. It can, in its vagueness, work with so many different storytelling concepts or frameworks involving children and local spooky mysteries. Having this “Ted” go to the Once-ler because he needs a tree in order to Get With Taylor Swift just feels like sacrilege, on top of being more vibe-wrecking specificity.

What I will give this narrative thread is that I think Ted subtly forgets this motivation in the end in a way that I actually liked: When he finally gets to plant the seed of the last Truffula Tree in the center of Thneedville (after a sequence of animated Antics that includes a radical snowboarding granny!), he’s so lost in the moment that he’s surprised when Swift’s Audrey gives him a peck on the cheek. Shortly before that, he also borrows the Lorax’s language in trying to win over the town by “speak[ing] for the trees.” I wish there was perhaps more of a spotlight placed on this transformation—how Ted doesn’t really care about trees initially (they’re just a means to an end, like they were for the Once-ler)—but he ultimately realizes that the health of the planet matters more than some mammalian milestone. The arc’s there, but it could have been drawn out as a new explicit moral that could have worked with this slick, modern Lorax, as one for the Smartphone Age youth, as it were. I am ultimately saying that this adaptation needed to change even more to function properly as a successor to the original.

The very beginning of The Lorax lulled me into a false sense of hope regarding the overall package, as there’s a movie-original rhyming bit delivered by the Lorax to set the stage that I felt matched ok enough with the source material, but I wish there was more that felt so effortful about this re-telling. There’s some “clever” incorporation of Seuss’ original words at points, and there are also some musical numbers that did not impress me on the first viewing. I lowered the volume a few notches for each one of them, in fact.

I didn’t (and still don’t) think any of these songs needed to be here, though I’ve changed my mind about them feeling what I was going to describe as “perfunctory.” That “you feel every song in [the movie] as a song first and foremost.” The comparison I was going to make was to musical theater, where what you want from a musical number is for the sentiment it expresses or the way that it advances the plot or deepens the audience’s understanding of a character to feel seamless—When you forget that the characters are even singing because it’s such a natural extension of the storytelling that it sweeps you away. Some of the musical numbers in The Lorax are even staged a bit like musical musical numbers, funnily enough. That’s a certain stylization I can respect. And they’ve grown on me over time (and after a second viewing), which also parallels my experience with musicals like Into the Woods. There was a “hollow, like a dead tree” final pronouncement attached to this train of thought originally, but I’m going to amend that slightly: Like a stricken, dying, or dead tree, there are fleeting glimpses of beauty or old grandeur in The Lorax, but also those tell-tale dead branches and unsightly growths that tell you the thing is not totally healthy.

[thesinglesjukebox]

MYLES SMITH - "STARGAZING"

"I just signed with my label [RCA Records], and I was like, 'I want to write something that’s really warm, fun and happy.'"

[4.15]

Jonathan Bradley: Three makes a trend, and it turns out the '10s are back, baby! Myles Smith is riding shotgun all the way to the folk-EDM festival and he... did I just hear a millennial whoop? [3]

Wayne Weizhen Zhang: "It's okay to feel x," reads Myles Smith's Spotify bio. What an exciting, original insight, reflective of the amount of utility one might glean from this generic thumper, which sounds like a Coldplay and Lewis Capaldi hybrid. [4]

Alfred Soto: I hear OneRepublic's "Apologize," hints of Chris Martin's oat-voiced yearning, and in the combination of piano + shows of vocal soul Sam Smith's creamy dance tracks from a decade ago. I'm less churlish in the face of Myles Smith's generic humility as I get older. Someone has to testify on the pop charts.  [6]

Taylor Alatorre: Wake Me Sister Up Top Counting Will Go By Gone Paradise World Let Ho House Soul the On Home Talks I of Hey Hey Gone Her Little Drive Wait Lego Riptide Stars Gone Home. (English translation: “Accept the truth of Eternal 2013 into your heart today.”) [7]

Katherine St. Asaph: I realize it's hypocritical to praise Shinedown's remarkable recreation of 2004 but criticize Myles Smith's remarkable recreation of 2014, but christ. [1]

Brad Shoup: It's fucking cryogenic, isn't it? [5]

Harlan Talib Ockey: Close enough. Welcome back, "Budapest" by George Ezra. [4]

TA Inskeep: Mewling post-Sheeran nothings -- of course it's big. [2]

Mark Sinker: Lovely voice, and the song does good work with that — but that’s all it does really; as melody and story it ends up at just one pleasantly unexciting level. [5]

Ian Mathers: It's for the best that this was a lyric video so that I could be immediately disabused of the notion that he sings of the two of them as "intertwining songs" (it's "souls" instead, much less distinct and lovely; oh well). Still, if we're going to continue to try to fill every single niche between the ballad and the dancefloor, this feels like a relatively productive mutation. [6]

Nortey Dowuona: Songwriter Peter Fenn, during a 2018 interview with Vogue LA, mentioned that he's scored commercials for "Dr. Seuss, Thumbtack, Red Cross, Baptist Health Care, and Dropbox" under the Sunny Productions banner. (The website no longer exists.) He also wrote this light, soft gem. Please take a chance on this guy -- he's very talented and capable of making soft cotton-candy guitar pop. Do not judge him by this. [5]

Jacob Sujin Kuppermann: Every part of this is rote; the verse melody recalls "Heart and Soul," the chorus Avicii. This is the music that remains when all creative choices have been removed from the songwriting process. I feel nostalgic for Benson Boone already. [2]

Scott Mildenhall: The song of a Southgate summer; a man who would pick this for Eurovision if he could. Once more, his pragmatism would prevail -- it would finish fifth, bewildering all who see only a barren display. All the stars have gone missing, and that in itself is remarkable. It's an achievement to write something so cosmically vapid, but this is what they train for. [4]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox]

[lolotheparagon]

Dr Seuss movie adaptations birthed Internet humour

You take these adorably whimsical kids books and people turn them into absolute bonkers chaotic messes and I love that.

I don’t know why so many of them bomb critically and commercially. These movies are hilarious. I think the one that deserved mid reception was the Grinch cos the amount of sexual pandering in that movie was uncomfortable.

[thesimpsonsultimateshowdown]

The Simpsons Ultimate Showdown!

Round 4; 16 Competitors Remain:

MAGGIE SIMPSON VS MARGE SIMPSON

Maggie Simpson TidBit: While designing Maggie and Lisa, Groening "couldn't be bothered to even think about girls' hair styles". At the time, Groening was primarily drawing in black and white and when designing Lisa and Maggie, he "just gave them this kind of spiky starfish hair style, not thinking that they would eventually be drawn in color".

Marge Simpson TidBit: The edition of October 1, 1990, of People included an interview with then-First Lady of the United States Barbara Bush. The article included the following passage: "She loves America's Funniest Home Videos but remains baffled after sampling The Simpsons. "It was the dumbest thing I had ever seen." The writers decided to respond by privately sending a polite letter on September 28 to Bush where they posed as Marge Simpson, seen here: "Dear First Lady, I recently read your criticism of my family. I was deeply hurt. Heaven knows we're far from perfect and, if truth be known, maybe just a wee bit short from normal; but as Dr. Seuss says, 'a person is a person'. I try to teach my children … always to give somebody the benefit of the doubt and not talk badly about them, even if they're rich. It's hard to get them to understand this advice when the very First Lady in the country calls us not only dumb, but 'the dumbest thing' she ever saw. … I hope there is some way out of this controversy. I thought, perhaps, it would be a good start to just speak my mind."