home authors guest shorts graphical shorts


There was a place that the nuns went to be on vacation. This place was the beach, and there were some grass huts that they stayed in. When the nuns got there, they all went into the huts and took off their costumes. They were wearing bathing suits underneath. Then when they were done, they came out of the huts and they ran to the ocean and played in the waves. One time one of the smaller nuns got hit by a wave and her bathing suit came all the way off and she was naked! The other nuns crowded around her to hide her places even though they thought there wasn't anybody around. But, they crowded too close and ended up all kissing. They kissed and kissed until they all had to take off their bathing suits, and then they kissed more! They put their hands way inside each other and touched each other's butts! This one nun was licking another nun's fronts with her tongue while the nun who was getting licked was biting at another nun's place and pulling a finger in the nun's behind. That nun was crying. Some had lipstick on then, and other makeup. These other two nuns kissed so hard they peed! They were really breathing fast. There were 15 of them all together. But there was some body around! It was GOD, who was everywhere! He was watching the nuns and was he MAD! He came down from heaven and blasted the nuns with a shot gun. And he ate them!

Date Written: June 01, 2005
Author: Mr. Pony
Average Vote: 4.33333

06/6/2005 Will Disney (4): Where'd you hear this? CCD?
06/6/2005 qualcomm (4): it's good, but feels like a stylistic retread, coming so soon after the original. 4.25
06/6/2005 John Slocum: I enjoy "pulling" a finger in my behind, particularly if it's mine.
06/6/2005 Mr. Pony: Whoa!
06/6/2005 John Slocum: I enjoy this style, I enjoy this short. The last paragraph crancles my rankal a bit, not enough to ruin it for me, but enough to leave me with a slightly off flavor, like ending a fine meal with a bad espresso and walking out of the restaurant with a bitter taste in your mouth. Just like that.
06/6/2005 qualcomm: why? how's the last paragraph a departure from the rest of the short?
06/6/2005 John Slocum: It's a rhythmic departure. The exclamation points come faster and more furiously in the final paragraph, making it feel rushed, tacked on. In the first 2 paragraphs, there's some variety in sentence length, not so in the final paragraph.
06/6/2005 qualcomm: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
06/6/2005 John Slocum: Thank you for informing me. I'd prefer to view myself realistically, but I'm too close myself to see clearly. I rely on people like you to help me see myself more clearly, realistically and truthfully. Thank you.
06/6/2005 John Slocum: Might you be suggesting that the relative uniformity of sentence length and over-use of exclamation points (and their resulting [boring] rhythm and [boring] tone) is purposeful? Are you the awetrer, and if not, can the owethar jump in here?
06/6/2005 qualcomm: pony's the author, i believe. he writes these stupid things completely off the cuff. there's no rhythmic plan to any of it. the whole thing's all madcap. it's "written by an 11-year-old." to criticize its spiky rhythm seems erroneous to me. did you really get bored in the time it took to read that extremely short paragraph?
06/6/2005 John Slocum: did I really get bored? No, of course not. Must I experience boredom to comment that a short paragraph has a boring rhythm? That question is beneath you. I had a gut reaction when I read, that the last paragraph wasn't as good as the first 2, and I said so. Then you asked why, and I analyzed it. I introspected, I soul-searched, I self-reflected, I had waking dream-journeys in which I, as a medieval warrior, fought the forces of evil. In the end, I realized I didn't care for the overuse of exclamation points and the rhythm of the sentences. They detracted from my enjoyment of the short overall. Why is it erroneous to critisize it's rhythm ("spiky" or otherwise")?
06/6/2005 qualcomm: also, one could argue that the shorter sentences in the last graf make perfect sense: the under-ritalined 11-year-old is getting excited as he nears his story's devastating climax.
06/6/2005 qualcomm: i think criticizing the structure of a short like this is like criticizing the use of line in a matza comic.
06/6/2005 anonymous: Do you mean *Brook* line?
06/6/2005 John Slocum: Why wouldn't both be critisizable?
06/6/2005 The Rid (4.5): Just wonderful.
06/6/2005 Jon Matza: What's wrong with my use of "line"?
06/6/2005 qualcomm: because matza's bad drawing is part of the joke (see fence guy's "feet"). here, bad writing/storytelling is part of the joke. rhythmic niceties are beside the point. you, sir, are beside the point.
06/6/2005 Klause Muppet (4.5): Rrrrright. Liked the narration and gruesome Lesbian detail. You know the path to my heart, Author!
06/6/2005 anonymous: Thanks, *Klause!*
06/6/2005 Jawbreaker (4): Very nice, Author. Very nice.
06/6/2005 qualcomm: oh, but not as nice as this, huh?
06/6/2005 Jawbreaker: Damn you QC!!!
06/6/2005 Jon Matza: QC: what do YOU think an accurate rendering of fence guy's feet would look like? [Matza smirks triumphantly & watches self lighting pipe in mirror]
06/6/2005 Mr. Pony (3.5): Liked "costumes". Otherwise, this story is completely implausible.
06/6/2005 The Rid: I found it implausible but horny.
06/6/2005 Klause Muppet: Dude, this could happen. In fact, it's happening right now.
06/6/2005 Jon Matza (4): Just got h'round to h'reading this. I h'gree that the last parag was less snuffbox than the rest. (Lest I be accused of whatever, I arrived at this conclusion prior to reading below exchange). Ronco use of 'place' in "...the nun who was getting licked was biting at another nun's place." Nerfbat overall tone.
06/6/2005 Litcube (4):
06/6/2005 John Slocum: Matza: Why was the last parag was less snuffbox than the rest? You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I think criticizing the structure of a short like this is like criticizing the use of line in a matza comic.
06/6/2005 qualcomm: i didn't like the second sentence because its rhythm was marred by a subjectively inappropriate number of syllables.
06/6/2005 Jon Matza: As I see it, the phallic violence exploding forth in the last paragraph detracts from the mesmerizing erotic aura established in the first two grafs.
06/6/2005 qualcomm: yeah but WHY though
06/6/2005 anonymous: I hate to have to be the one to say this, but that was sort of the point!
06/7/2005 scoop: I am thoroughly baffled at the confusion about that last graf there. Even on the most basic technical level of tone it seemed spot on and, as the author just noted, the point. I mean, read it. It sounds just like something the hyperactive, can't-wait-to-tell-you-the-next- part-of-this-totally-made-up-wacky-story-next-because -it's-even-crazier-then-the-last-do-you-have-any-candy- because-I-love-candy-you-ever-see-a-dead-guy-I-did-once- and-it-was-cool narrator would say, and exactly how he would say it. But the other point is that who the fuck cares about consistencey in tone as an aesthetic holy grail anyway. I know this is a point that has been thoroughly shelacked here in the past, but if a tonal shift leads to laughs then who fucking cares.
06/7/2005 qualcomm: scoop: is the answer "tools"? tools care?
06/7/2005 John Slocum: Scoop, matza and I had, I think, 2 different objections to the final graf. My objection wasn't in the tonal arena. Also - and possibly more important - whether a tonal shift or a rhythmic shift it DIDN'T lead to more laughs (at least not for THIS guy). Therefore, Mr. Pony, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR POINT WAS.
06/7/2005 scoop: So the words weren't funny?
06/7/2005 scoop: Or, rather, the image conjured by the words waasn't funny?
06/7/2005 qualcomm: slocum: but there was no shift. though.
06/7/2005 John Slocum: Anyway, I really enjoyed your short, Pony. Very funny. And fun. A little horny, too.
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: Dudes, the spectacle of a retarded 11-year old retardedly reporting on an anal nun orgy surprises and delights me, but the same retarded 11-year old retardedly blurting out a shotgun-based revenge scenario doesn't, even if God Himself's wielding the shotgun. I'm not saying the author wasn't in control of what he was doing, just that the choice he made doesn't appeal to my sense of wellbutrin.
06/7/2005 qualcomm: would you agree then that slocum doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about?
06/7/2005 qualcomm: also, why doesn't it delight you? you're not being very helpful.
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: Tell you what: if you tell me why you think it was delightful, I'll believe your question's sincere & answer it.
06/7/2005 qualcomm: wow, you'll believe i'm sincere? do i deserve that kind of magnanimousness?
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: Well, are you?
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: p.s. "magnanimity' might have been a preferable usage.
06/7/2005 Ferucio P. Chhretan (4.5): "fronts"....nice
06/7/2005 Mr. Pony: Hey, Ferucio!!!
06/7/2005 qualcomm: yes, i was sincere.
06/7/2005 Mr. Pony: Hey, Matza! Sometimes when people write stories (I'm told) they make their narrator do or say things that aren't necessarily "good"! Sometimes people can even write stories where the narrator is laughable, or dumb, or despicable. I just want you to know that I didn't like the way the story ended either, and I hope you and me can still be buddies.
06/7/2005 Mr. Pony: That's the most important thing.
06/7/2005 scoop: You're confusing being buddies with being right, I think.
06/7/2005 Mr. Pony: When it really comes down to it, scoop, is there any difference? Is there any difference at all?
06/7/2005 Mr. Pony: Matza?
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: Here I, Matza, am!
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: Pony: I wasn't sure to what extent your comment was in jest. Surely you've noticed that most of my shorts contain laughable/dumb/despicable narrators? I am not just saying this, it's so steeped in irony I can't "read" your actual meaning. QC: as I said, I'll take a stab at trying to explain why I found grafs 1 & 2 less funny than 3 (though I sort of thought I already did) if you give your reasons for liking graf 3, first. Surely this is reasonable, given that you're the one demanding an explanation from me. Also, this way you get the chance to publicly compliment your friend Pony, which will make you feel good.
06/7/2005 Mr. Pony: Well, I really don't understand what you are saying about this short. Ordinarily, I like to hang back and watch the comments about stuff I make resolve themselves, but I really don't understand what you are saying about this short. Furthermore, what are you saying about this short? I don't usually do this.
06/7/2005 Mr. Pony: Also, are you insane? qualcomm is often super-mean to me! Remember when he was Old Summer Sausage? Not many remember that, but I do! He was dreadful! To me!
06/7/2005 Mr. Pony: With my irony-steeped comment, I was trying to understand if your criticism of this short was just that you didn't like the way it ended, and to make fun of you if it was (I'm sorry).
06/7/2005 Mr. Pony: Look, I said I was sorry.
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: As I said, I'll take a stab at the exercise of trying to analyze why I found the last graf unfunny (less funny than the rest of the short, rather) if and when one of you omniscient fellows helps me understand (i.e. goes through the equally fruitless exercise of attempting to explain) what's so wonderful/hilarious about it. Please make sure your reasoning about why you like it/find it funny is objective.
06/7/2005 John Slocum: did qc/pony actually find the last graf funny, or did they just object to us not finding it funny? Pony said he did it on purpose (which I'm sure he did), but not whether he liked it, or pulled it off the way he wanted to. QC just argued with me about why I like it. BUT HAS ANYONE SAID THEY ACTUALLY LIKE IT/THINK IT'S FUNNY???!!!!!!???
06/7/2005 qualcomm: yes, it's as funny as anything else in the short.
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: i.e., I can't/am unwilling to go out on a limb and argue why I think it's as funny, thereby admitting my response is an opinion, just like everyone's reaction always is by definition. So I'll just continue to pretend I know the truth without specifying what it is & attacking those who disagree with me. Why is my uterus wobbling?
06/7/2005 qualcomm: matza, i don't think the last graf is any real departure from the rest of the short. i find it funny for basically the same reasons i (and probably you) find the rest of the short funny. it's basically more of the same, if you ask me, and as "logical" a conclusion as one could hope for in such a senseless story.

on a joke by joke level: god's reliance on a shotgun is key; god's eating the nuns is also key; the reference to god as merely "some body" [sic]: cute/pretty key.

two of the four sentences contain solid structural jokes. the dependent clause "who was everywhere!" is key. "and he ate them" is actually an intuitive, deft use of sentence fragment, heightening the surprise of its own content. its brevity, lack of description, and ultimate placement in the short make the nun-eating seem much more brutal, too, and therefore, funnier. also, if one wishes to ponce on about RHYTHM, it's a terrific anapest or iamb or whatever for ending this short: ba da DUM bum -- it sounds like a rim shot.

i realize some of the above praise isn't very well-supported, specifically the "key" items. i am assuming you will like these, too, and i don't want to waste my $25/hour time. however, if you disagree with any of those key citations, let me know, and i will try to explain why they're any good.
06/7/2005 Jon Matza: Didn't know that was coming...apologies for prev attack. I have 3 presentations in my satellite queue, it's going to be awhile before I can read/respond.
06/7/2005 qualcomm: incidentally, i attacked slocum because i thought his arguments were both terrible and smug.
06/7/2005 John Slocum: smug?
06/7/2005 qualcomm: yes. or else, your argument simply came off that way because it was both so incorrect (as i think i, pony and scoop have successfully argued) and so self-assured. perhaps more precisely, because it seemed like you thought your completely subjective analyis was in any way objective. even more precisely, while your supporting points (last graf had more exclamation points; last graf had shorter sentences) were objective facts, your conclusions (made it feel rushed/tacked on; decreased humor) were vague and subjective. yet, you seemed to think you were making an objective argument. this had the effect of rankling my chancre at a time when it really doesn't need the extra rankling.
06/7/2005 TheBuyer (5): yup.
06/7/2005 Klause Muppet: Dude, you make $25/hour? American?! Fuck'n Eh.
06/7/2005 TheBuyer: american...oh fuck that's funny.
06/7/2005 John Slocum (4): good to know you've achieved the required quorum of 3 people successfully arguing the same point in order to be able to claim objectivity and exclaim my incorectness.

However it "seemed" to you, I never thought anything I was doing was anything other than exploring my subjective reaction to Mr. Pony's lovely short (which I just realized I never voted on, but always intended to give a four to). My foray into punctuation and sentence length was my first attempt at figuring out why I didn't care for the final graf. You replied: "you don't know what the fuck you're talking about." Talk about flankling a trancre. Sakes alive. For next time, how can I avoid coming off as so self assured, and how can I
06/7/2005 John Slocum: (ooops) make it clear I'm not trying to crack off all objective?
06/7/2005 John Slocum: Next time, also, I'll pay more attention to the state of your chancre to determine it's ability to absorb a good rankling.
06/7/2005 Benny Maniacs (4.5): This short gives me a healthier outlook on things.
06/8/2005 qualcomm: ah, shucks. i feel like a heel now.
06/8/2005 Jon Matza: Author: did you envision the narrator as an 11 year old (or some similar age) boy or just an idiot? Just cure. qc: I find it hard to believe you really think of Slocum as smug, because a) you know him and b) his acme persona seems, for the most part, happy-go-lucky/ good-natured & flexible. Maybe you objected to what you saw as his facile reasoning, I'll grant you that, but the intensity of your reaction would cause a reasonable bystander to suspect you were just looking to pick (or continue) a fight. I wonder what you would say to that bystander, brother.

Re last par, I liked those individual jokes just fine. Maybe if I'd read them more attentively I'd've been less dismissive. However, in my opinion, it, the graf, lacks the plumploin useless (non-plot related) details (e.g., grass huts, makeup) which give the other 2 grafs a transcendently stupid stream of consciousness vibe. Furthermore, while I'll grant you that the voice and quality of jokes is consistent throughout the moronologue, it still loses something for me in 3...perhaps because an annoying, breathless 11 year ADD case's power fantasy is close to reality--something I'd expect & have heard versions of--whereas the same cunt's perspective on nun sex is unusual & preposterous. Acer, in other words.
06/8/2005 Mr. Pony: I wasn't thinking that much about the narrator's specific age, but I think he's a kid. My focus was more on how he's telling this story, and really enjoying it (and making a lot of sharp turns to get to the stuff he wants to think about) when something (probably guilt) forces him to ruin it. I didn't necessarily need for that to come through, but that was the genesis of the third paragraph.
06/8/2005 qualcomm: i don't think pony was necessarily writing this from the standpoint of an 11-year-old; the narrator could of course also simply be an idiot, or even pony himself on a particularly beavis-ish, caffeine tear (cast your mind back to his running around prospect park, chasing passing frisbees with a whiffle bat).

i could see your reading the third graf that way, and while i don't agree with it, i accept your reasoning with magnanimousness! it does not rankle my chancre because it's logically argued and not some fancified description of a subjective reaction. however, one could counter-argue that the entrance of the penised god into the writer/narrator's guilty conscience induced in him an overpowering sense of shame. like adam and eve, the writer/narrator suddenly realized he was naked (ie, writing a gynocentric, chthonic idyll, full of non-sequitur and paradox), and consequently covered himself in the fig leaf of masculine logic, coherence and a sense of moral justice. finally, the eating of the nuns buries the evidence of the author's psycho-sexual shame from his own wounded ego.

apologies, slocum, if my arguments were once again overly vitriolic. i'd had a steadily mounting annoyance with the critiques on acme for several weeks, and the levee broke on monday. also, i am a big jerk.
06/8/2005 qualcomm: sorry, pony, for stepping on your toes there. i didn't see your comment before posting mine. turns out i, like, read your mind!
06/8/2005 Mr. Pony: That's cool, although it should be pointed out that I was deftly swatting those clumsily thrown frisbees out of the air, and not "chasing" them.
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: 2nd rate James K. Polk rip off. 2 stars. Intentionally stupid narration has been played out. I'm surprised at the high votes. Did you guys really laugh at this?
06/10/2005 qualcomm: yeah, but ewan, there's more than just intentional stupidity here. i think the style is original. sentences like "This place was the beach, and there were some grass huts that they stayed in." are beyond just stupid. they're clumsy in a unique and original way. aren't they?
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: No, I don't think so. I think they're clumsy in the same way I've seen many times before. If I get around to it, I'll find examples. But it surprises me you don't find this to be a well worn joke.
06/10/2005 Mr¸Pony: Get over yourself, you bloated, arrogant gasbag.
06/10/2005 Will Disney: What's that funny comma doing in your name, Pony?
06/10/2005 Mr. Pony: Goddammit.
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: Yeah, Pony, can't you do *anything* right?
06/10/2005 Mr. Pony: Snow, do you really think this is a bad copy of a James K. Polk short? Which one?
06/10/2005 Ewan Snow: I don't know, maybe not. I'd have to look through them to see. Maybe I'm thinking of ones I wrote as Ewan or a pseudonym. And to be fair, it's actually a good copy. And no, I don't think it's really a "copy", per se. But it felt old hat to me and didn't crack a smirk on me. I feel like the style of clumsy/dumb/kid narrator is actually just a single joke, and one I've seen many times before. This general type of approach is my fallback technique when I can't think of a short, or am writing a short under a pseudonym and want to make it seem dumb, or not seem to have been written by me. They usually go over okay, but I'm never that crazy about them. I dunno, maybe this is a different twist on it, but I knew by the second sentence that this would get all its gags out of the narrator's clumsiness/naivete/stupidity or whatever.
06/10/2005 Mr. Pony: Huh.
06/14/2005 Mr. Pony: Oh yeah, well; there's some stuff that I can do in my sleep that I bet you have to try real hard to do!! Anyway, if you think this is two stars worth of short, you should really go ahead and two star it. Throw some weight behind your opinion.
04/26/2006 Master Bates (5): bravo!
04/26/2006 Mr. Pony: Vindicated!