(~simul iustus & peccator~)'s LiveJournal Day [entries|friends|calendar]
(~simul iustus & peccator~)

[ website | \\\ \\\ DevArt Gallery ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

[23 Feb 2005|12:06pm]
There's a Scrooge McDuck and Flintheart Glomgold on sages_of_chaos, which is a sort of multifandom roleplay that I don't participate in, just read for the funny. Now, I think very few people will understand just why I think that Scrooge McDuck is the sexiest thing that ever sexed, or why I'm entirely too squeey-y over the fact that diamond_duck is using Keno Don Rosa's art for his icons, but therein lies the answer.

Don Rosa, the man who did to Disney's ducks what Homer did to the Greek gods... Okay, a slight exaggeration. But he did give them distinct personalities, made them interesting, and added a touch of homoerotica. He also purposefully violates Disney's comics code in pretty much every story he's written/drawn, and fucks with the censors in subtle ways that the fans know all about. They're funny and snarky and educational and tragic, and just about everything you wouldn't expect to find in Disney comics

In which Scrooge destroys an African village and alienates his sisters in his youth
In which Donald is about to be beheaded by King Arthur's henchmen, and his nephews explain how the actual history differs from Arthurian legends - in a fashion thoroughly superior to the King Arthur movie
In which Porthole McDuck attempts to explain to a native American the difference between Indians and Indian-Indians

And the best thing of all... What he's actually doing, is writing really brilliant, successful fanfiction to Carl Barks's stories, expanding on the little details Barks liked to throw in to give the ducks actual context.

Me and my brother, who also loves his work and fought me for the Don Rosa hardback editions upon first moving out, actually discovered him before he became a Big Name, just for his distinctive drawing style and tendency to make illuminated circles around some of the characters at least once per story, that we then began to associate with Good Fucking Story -- which factors into his popularity. Disney cartoonists aren't allowed to put their own names on their work, it all has to be published under the name of Walt Disney, so to stand out by the quality of your work alone to the point where it's his name that now sells the stories is really saying something.

But because I know that I'll never be able to properly explain the brilliance of it without you reading the stuff for yourself, I will now scutter off to contemplate on why bondage would be such an essential part of Scrooge and Flintheart's erotically antagonistic relationship.



Sexy.
post comment

[23 Feb 2005|10:51pm]
I've found myself thinking about Spike and Angel's relationship a lot, lately. About Joss Whedon's comments that they had had a sexual relationship at some point in the past, as vampires, and that he already 'had the perfect couple' in them. I've still yet to see the last two and a half seasons of Buffy and a single episode of Angel, but I've been thoroughly spoiled to the conclusions. It's what the story would have looked like told from the point of view of them as the 'OTP' that I've been wondering about.

Spike only knew Angelus for eighteen years as a vampire before the man got souled, and eighteen years seems like a really short time for vampires -- like a couple of weeks for humans. And yet it's during these eighteen years that they've had to have had the 'except that one--' (time, night, decade?) of theirs. And that it probably would have required all the stuff that happened in the following century for them to really grow into their feelings after this 'one night stand'. For Angel to genuinely become a better man despite the curse, and for Spike to stop thinking of Angel as his 'Yoda'.

It makes sense to me. Spike was a romantic, gentle poet-boy as a human, while Angel self-confessedly was already a mean bastard when he was still alive. And I understand that in the fandom majority's opinion Spike's 'redemption' is seen as somehow cheaper than Angel's, which I can't subscribe to at all. Gentle young boy gets made into a monster and then eventually goes to get his own soul back for love vs. a drunkard lout who killed his own family getting souled by a gypsy whammy because he gnawed on the neck of the wrong person? The math doesn't seem that complicated to me. But it's fitting; two souled vampires who are still each other's polar opposites. Even if, eventually, they would have gotten together, the snark would never end.

And I like both Angel and Spike with Buffy. I think they both would have needed her, as some kind of a phase... a conduit, more than she needed them. And somehow, watching the first season now, I see Angel initially getting attracted to the Slayer as some kind of a subconscious reaction to his knowledge about Spike's fixation with them. And that it was after Spike's appearance to Sunnydale that he first had sex with the Slayer, knowing what it would do to him. I also see Buffy as the factor that freed both of them from the physical and emotional bonds to their sires, Darla and Drusilla, allowing them to move on.

So, yeah. Maybe not what Whedon was thinking about, but I like it that I can see this kind of a story in the background.
6 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | February 23rd, 2005 ]
[ go | previous day|next day ]