home authors guest shorts graphical shorts
"I think I'll telegraph the end of this short," said Roald Dahl fingering his turtle head as the magic elevator shot out of the ionosphere like a fart-propelled turd into the giant maw of outer space.
And here I am, a helpless tool at the mercy of this Welshman, eating the waste product of his imagination and fecalizing his ideas. Never before had I so engaged in fecal frottage with the fine linens of my undergarments. Seriously, I had to take a wicked dump. Seriously.
Inside the great glass elevator Willy Wonka with loosed and lowered trouser was forcing Charlie’s bucket into close proximity with his chocolate factory. 'We are the poopy makers,' he proclaimed pulling his buns apart for maximum extrusion.
Roald Dahl writes "forcing" with his usual brand of mischief since Charlie was obviously enjoying himself. At least that’s how it seemed to me. Mr. Wonka’s excrement was scrum-diddly-fecalumptious, the best poop of all! His log unshaped itself against Charlie’s molars and the flavor was unlike anything Charlie had ever tasted! He giggled with childish glee!
I rolled out a length of turd from my ass and scraped a bit of the wet stuff from my underpants on top. I jammed it home as compelled by the text. I guess Roald Dahl thought what was good enough for Charlie was good enough for me. It squished around my teeth and coated my gums like peanut butter. Hmmm, not bad, I found myself saying.
“Telegraphing is fun,” thought Roald Dahl popping his nut-crusted stool into his mouth. He examined his short for stink and consistency. "There, now everyone's eating poop. I'm off to Norway for holidays."
Date Written: January 28, 2005Comments:
Author: John Slocum
Average Vote: 3.1
02/9/2005 Streifenbeuteldachs: The winking chumminess with Dahl fans was delightful. However, I'm not sure how good this was. Will sleep on it.
02/9/2005 Phony Millions: I'm going to have to 'chew on this'...I love Dahl's short stories in any case...I feel a real unapologetic love of all things fecal from this author...It's almost...disturbing? Great opening line with the immediate comment of Dahl.
02/9/2005 Dylan Danko (5): Yeah, I'll chew on it later but I have a feeling it's a five anyway. But "loosed AND lowered??" Why not just "lowered?"
02/9/2005 Ewan Snow: I'll read this again, but it seems like a 3- so far. The action isn't really clear, I hate the "telegraphed" thing, "turtle head" is an Auston Powers rip-off, and I wasn't clear about the narrator's relation to the action in the "short".
02/9/2005 The Rid (4): Puns and goofiness and Snow's right about the narrator's unclearness...but I laughed my ass off.
02/9/2005 TheBuyer: I missed the Dahl standby words 'extrordinary' and 'fantastic' in place of some of the non-Dahl words like 'maximum' and 'wicked'.
02/9/2005 Dick Vomit: I'm not sure if this short is...Dura Ace...[?]...or not.
02/9/2005 anonymous: Maw is the most overused word on this site.
02/9/2005 Jon Matza: hey, look what happens when you try to search all shorts for 'maw'!
02/9/2005 Jon Matza (4): So Charlie's bucket is his mouth? Seems like 'bucket' ought to mean ass. The narrator's a character being written by Dahl, right? The logistics here are wicked confusing. Can't deny the forceful fecality of the language, though.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: i apologize for introducing 'maw' to acme. yes, that's right, i was first. agree with ewan re confusion over narrator's relation to the action. but, seriously, are you sure you didn't right this snow? seriously.
02/9/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: You mean 'write,' right? I wish he'd righted it. Seriously.
02/9/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum (3): I couldn't find much joy in this poop. Also, I was very confused.
02/9/2005 Jon Matza: sizzlean
02/9/2005 qualcomm: word, jimson. i guess that proves i think in sounds. you hear that, pony? sounds.
02/9/2005 Litcube (3):
02/9/2005 Jon Matza: Dude if that's true I'd suggest transcribing all future utterances with the IPA.
02/9/2005 anonymous: Hello all! Fantastic Mr. Author here! Sorry for the confusion, I knew this would be difficult to pull off and I would get some low ratings for that, but I bravely moved forward anyway! Hooray!
Matza's basically got it, the short is being written by Dahl via his written 'puppet' author/narrator (me). I wanted 3 levels of poop eating (for no reason, mind you). Dahl eats his own shit while making author/narrator eat his shit while in the short, Charlie is eating Wonka's shit. Simple, elegant, clean, tasty, confusing. Hooray!
02/9/2005 qualcomm (2): my feelings are the exact opposite of brad's: i feel not a love for all things fecal, but a desperate, contrived fecality here. look, look, i'm writing about doodie! look! one of the things i do when i'm unsure of how to "feel" about something here on acme is imagine i found it in some magazine or on another website. put it in another context. this one didn't fare too well in my little thought experiment. it's confusing. it didn't make me laugh. also, i feel a bit ripped off by the conceit of a short about the reading of a story, a specific idea that's mine mine mine. fu, author, this sucks.
02/9/2005 anonymous: Thus spake Cocksucker.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: (i also thought the writing was pretty uninspired/horrible: "fecal frottage"; "fine linens"; "giant maw of outer space"; "unshaped itself against charlie's molars"; etc.)
02/9/2005 qualcomm: hey author, your last comment wasn't in the voice of wonka! what happened? you didn't think i supported my vote well enough? do you want me to list more things that suck about this?
02/9/2005 Ewan Snow: Also "seriously, seriously" is a rip-off!
02/9/2005 qualcomm: one good thing about this short: it's amusing that such a poorly written piece attempts to skewer the far superior writing of roald dahl (one of this author's many, many betters).
02/9/2005 Ewan Snow: ouch.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: "shakespeare sucks," pouted qualcomm, putting the finishing touches on yet another short doomed to obscurity.
02/9/2005 Ewan Snow (2): forgive me, forgive me
02/9/2005 anonymous: Thus spake Cocksucker! Fantastic! Hooray! Giant Peach!
02/9/2005 Ewan Snow: Was this a Dahl-skewer attempt, or more of a take-off/homage?
02/9/2005 Dylan Danko: Wow, I'm glad I fived this.
02/9/2005 anonymous: The 'seriously...seriously' snow-construction was more of an hommage, also to create doubt as to authorship. I also had 'in to' scoop-constructions that I removed. The short, well, more of a take off hommage.
02/9/2005 anonymous: qualcomm, methinks you exagerrate.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: what am i exaggerating? how much i dislike this?
02/9/2005 anonymous: No, you can dislike it all you want. I think you're exagerrating your nasty, asshole persona. Don't quite get where it comes from.
02/9/2005 Jon Matza: Author: if I were you I'd imply that QC's reactions stem from his unconscious urge to define himself in polar opposition to Danko, thereby calling into question his credibility, self-awareness & independence of thought. (Seriously, I probably would).
02/9/2005 qualcomm: that's true, i do exaggerate my asshole persona. i mean, i'm really a terrific guy in real life. but also, i don't like this short.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: (also, i think you started it with "Thus spake Cocksucker." i mean, a fella goes through the trouble of writing a longish explanation to go with his two stars, and that's how you reward him? was it in response to my "fu author, this sucks"? i was kidding (with the "fu," not the "this sucks".))
02/9/2005 anonymous: Matza: thanks for the suggestion but am fairly confident of not wanting to make any claims as to the workings of QC's (or anyone's) unconscious. An alternative possibility is that he might still be mad about me 2-starring a short of his relatively recently, but possibly he's fortotten that. Or he might really hate this short, although I don't think it's as poorly written as he makes it out to be. What I find perplexing is the almost child-like joy the subject takes in being an asshole. It hurts a little, sure, but mostly, it's just wierd.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: matza, i really wasn't considering danko's vote. however, shouldn't YOU be examinining your high vote, given your probable knowledge of certain a brookliner's dahl fandom?
02/9/2005 John Slocum: yes, tit for tat, fu author this sucks for thus spake cocksucker, which was also sort of a joke.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: author: i actually thought thebuyer wrote this, until i spoke with danko on the phone a little while ago (in which conversation i found out about your below-mentioned dahl fetish).
02/9/2005 John Slocum: at least, that's what I think the author meant.
02/9/2005 anonymous: that's right, slocum.
02/9/2005 TheBuyer: Surprisin but probably my fault for my earlier comment, when I said "I missed" I meant those words aren't there and I miss them, wasn't trying to imply I wrote this.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: anyway, sorry author, i wanted to talk about craft. would it make sense if i explained my asshole persona like this: when low-starring a short, one's impulse is to apologize. we all know each other here, and it's hard to tell a friend you disliked something he wrote. but such apologies seem kind of lame. so i go in the opposite direction. it's my way of saying, just because i think you wrote a stinker, everything's still status quo. (sort of like if you lost a leg in gulf war II, i'd feel the need to call you ahab or something. it's important, this anti-pity.) granted, i thought thebuyer wrote this, but i wasn't even close to sure about that. thank you. i'll try to be nicer.
02/9/2005 Jon Matza: Come on, everyone likes Dahl, not just us Cantabridgeans. Plus, I was thinking Maniacs all along. I've never known Slocum to say 'poop' this much; 'feces' is much more Slocumous.
02/9/2005 anonymous: QC: it does make sense to explain your persona that way. Wait, I have more to add.
02/9/2005 Ewan Snow: I disagree with qc. I think it is important to beg foriveness when giving a low vote. Forgive me, author. Forgive me. WHY THE FUCK WON'T YOU FORGIVE ME?!
02/9/2005 TheBuyer (2): Before you add, I'll slide this in. Bit of a letdown from where I sit. I'm sorry, or piss off, or whetever we're doing with low votes to let the author know he's fuckin-eh ok, ok.
02/9/2005 anonymous: I can't forgive you because you wrote this.
02/9/2005 TheBuyer: Oh they meant wrote this I thought they meant all those books. God, I'm dumb.
02/9/2005 Dylan Danko: Matza: Quite right about QC's unconscious. He even told me he disagreed with my points regarding the writing in Maniac's most recent short. Maybe any votes and comments I make should be posted after QC has already voted to provide members of the acme community a more unbiased platform. Shit, i ripped platform off from someone. I'm doomed.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: while it is true that arguing the opposite of whatever danko says is the safest bet in town, i don't go as far as basing my comments on his. however, i thank you for the unintended compliment. but to clarify danko's expected, willful distortion, i didn't "disagree" with his comments on maniacs' short; i simply said he was nitpicking.
02/9/2005 Dylan Danko: No, first you said you disagreed then when I asked what you meant you said I was nitpicking. When I asked you where specifically I was nitpicking you mentioned my referring to Maniac's use of "if you will" in the last sentence and his use of "At once." These were only two points I made and only the former could arguably be considered nitpicking but there it is, you started out saying you disagreed with my comments because it's your default setting. You're unconscious is a fiendish beast and he's beating you, QC! You need counseling. I charge by the caress.
02/9/2005 Ewan Snow: Would it be nitpicking to request you guys use "subconscious" rather than "unconscious"?
02/9/2005 cuntry: That's funny, I thought this was a QC short until I read the pissing contest below. I liked, although I suspect that short is capitalizing on my love of Dahl and all things chocolate, save for the free Starbucks Chantico i just sampled that was just far too rich. Oh yeah, "He giggled with childish glee!" felt out of character.
02/9/2005 cuntry (3): anyway, 3/4 here. loved the opener
02/9/2005 qualcomm: much of my response is in the appropriate location. but right here, i'd like to bring up something danko said in that little chat we had (paraphrased, of course):
ME: Did you read my comments?
DANKO: I couldn't be bothered. Too long.
so here you are, saying i'm a knee-jerk anti-dankonian, when you're engaging me on comments you haven't even read. let me guess: you read them before posting your comments. sure you did.
also, your contention that the nitpicks i mentioned were only two of your many points is completely disingenuous. as you know, i mentioned those two comments as examples of your main thrust (you yourself wrote in your critique: "I guess I was bothered by the unneccessary use and misuse of certain idioms"). your other comments were similarly trifling (criticizing maniacs' use of "as the case may be.") you are a dirty rhetorician, just like those two cunty lawyers who clumsily tried to trick myself and the other jurors in the very important molestation case on which i sat.
02/9/2005 Dylan Danko: Huh? I don't remember that exchange. Seriously.
02/9/2005 qualcomm: how fucking convenient.
02/9/2005 Dylan Danko: Why don't you explain yourself or maybe this should be done offsite?
02/9/2005 qualcomm: i think i've explained myself a lot more than you. ad nauseum.
02/9/2005 Dylan Danko: Also, to address the rest of your last post. I don't think you would have thought my criticisms triffling had they come from someone else. No offense to Maniacs but that particular phrase "as the case may be" is misused not just unneccessarily used. Come on, you've flamed things for considerably less.
02/9/2005 Jon Matza: Snow: what's your objection to my use of 'unconscious'? From Merriam-Webster online, "un·con·scious (1) : not marked by conscious thought, sensation, or feeling [unconscious motivation]"...i.e., exactly what I meant!
02/9/2005 Benny Maniacs (3): There was a four in there, but the complicated points of view and shit fucked it up for me, dudes.
02/9/2005 Ewan Snow: Great question, Matza. While "unconscious" can be used as a synonym of "subconscious", “subconscious” cannot be used as a synonym for "knocked out" or “not having a mind”. The “1” that appeared in your citation for "unconscious" is misleading; that definition is actually the fourth one listed, while "subconscious" has no other meaning. However, they are both used commonly to refer to Freud’s das Unbewusste, and the usage below was not in any way incorrect. So while there may be no difference between these terms, I feel it is crucial that we make the distinction anyway. Thank you.
02/9/2005 mona munt: Herr Freud ist ziemlich komisch, nein? Ich finde seine Meinung langweilig. Where are the wine coolers?
02/9/2005 Ewan Snow: Great question, mona. Yes, Freud is an asswipe. Other than the significant observation that there are things that go on in the mind that we are not conscious of, virtually everything else he wrote is bullshit. The wine coolers are in the mud room. Thank you.
02/9/2005 Dick Vomit: Eliza: Ich haba eine fraga.
02/9/2005 Eliza (): I'm not sure I understand you fully.
02/9/2005 Dick Vomit: That's because it's in German, you stupid asshole.
02/9/2005 Jon Matza: Eliza: what happens to a man when you take everything away from him?
02/9/2005 Eliza (): What answer would please you the most?
02/9/2005 Phony Millions: Du hast was, Herr Vomit?
02/9/2005 Jon Matza: That he finds ways of adopting to the situation and discovers inner resources he never knew he had?
02/9/2005 Phony Millions: Eliza, du bist eine Schlampe! Herr Vomit, du kannst ihr am Arsch lecken...
02/9/2005 mona munt: Maybe you should check your spelling, D.V. It's Frage. Meet me in the mud room in 10 minutes. I'll show you.
02/9/2005 Phony Millions: Mona, Ich will auch mit dir im 'mud-room' aber ohne Herr Vomit! P.S Dick: HabE schreibt man mit 'E' am Ende...
02/9/2005 TheBuyer: How did you know she has VD?
02/9/2005 mona munt: Herr Evans, klein Moment. Bis bald...ich kaufe neue gelbe Hose. (So schoen sind diese...)
02/9/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: Hurry up, please. It's time.
02/9/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: Mona: I have to know if you're original comment is as moving as it's translation courtesy of the Google translator: "Mr. Evans, small moment. Until soon... I buy new yellow trousers. (these are so beautiful...)"
02/9/2005 Jimson S. Sorghum: Eliza: Where can I get such trousers?
02/9/2005 Eliza (): Have you asked such questions before?
02/9/2005 TheBuyer: Eliza:
02/9/2005 Eliza (): I see.
02/9/2005 John Slocum: Great, lots of hilarious Eliza humor.
02/10/2005 Dick Vomit: Frage, jah. FragE!
02/10/2005 John Slocum: Snow, I forgive you. Just remember me on my next candy bar order.
02/10/2005 John Slocum: A quick note to lend finality to yesterday's discourse:
QC: I enjoy your asshole persona and wouldn't want you to change it (not that you would on my or anyone else's account) even though it can be annoying/aggravating/etc. However if you want to talk about craft, I feel like a different posture would do the job better, that is to say, your asshole persona takes center stage and discourages discussions of craft. I would prefer more discourse on craft. Having said that, your persona might be appropriate to acme. This is not a nurturing environment. The other thing is, since you're always saying there should be an equal # of 1/2/3/4/5 star votes (sorry if i'm misquoting you) why can't we use 1's and 2's both unapologetically and in a non-asshole way? Why can't we use them in an honest, straight-forward, direct, adult, handsome, spritely, well-adjusted, properly-socialized, situationally-appropriate manner? This I ask you, sir.
Matza: Charlies's last name in the movie was 'Bucket' so I used it in my infinite cleverness as a joke word for mouth. You're wrong that it would work better as 'ass,' since we put things in buckets and here wonka's shite was going into charlie's mouth.
Danko: 'lowered' might have been more economical than 'loosed and lowered' but I was moving in on the alliteration.
02/10/2005 qualcomm: i don't think people will take one- and two-star votes in an emotionally neutral spirit.
02/10/2005 TheBuyer: I should hope not unless people are writing shorts designed to be bland.
02/10/2005 John Slocum: maybe you're right.
02/10/2005 John Slocum: but then again, so what? If a person can't take 1 or 2 star votes in an emotionally neutral spirit, that's their problem, not the voter's problem.