home authors guest shorts graphical shorts


I had Disney pegged for a homo the first time I met him. He looked at me with those faggoty eyes that pled for understanding. Male understanding. But I wasn't having it because I'm totally not gay. So he moves on to this other guy who was like "oh fuck!" and tried to walk away and stuff but Will was like "heeeeeyyyyy, yoohooooo, how ya doin', my name's Will. I'm really into MAGIC! Do you like my belly ring? Would you like me to make you a friendship bracelet?" He had his stupid Rational shirt tied in a knot in the middle like the way the girls do it. Anyways, this was back when Ewan and Matza used to live together down the road from me in Cambridge so we were all hanging out in the kitchen playing "I never" and Disney went to the bathroom and this guy from Rational (which is the place Will and Ewan worked at) was like "I've never had a reach around from Will Disney" and everyone immediately started laughing and they all had to drink and then Disney comes back from freshening up his lip liner and goes "hey guys, what's so funny" and we were all like trying not to laugh but then Ewan couldn't do it and spat beer all over Matza who was still pissed at Ewan for the car thing. But back to Will being a huge homo...

Date Written: April 22, 2004
Author: Dylan Danko
Average Vote: 3.75

04/27/2004 Ferucio P. Chhretan: Man I wish I knew all the inside jokes.
04/27/2004 qualcomm (4):
04/27/2004 Ewan Snow (4): True. All true.
04/27/2004 Will Disney: I have two questions about this Short. 1. What's so funny? 2. Do you like my belly ring?
04/27/2004 anonymous: Well, the fact that it's all true is funny. I mean, I still have your friendship bracelet.
04/27/2004 Jon Matza (2): Author: your sub-mediocre effort should be marked as an inside short.
04/27/2004 Jon Matza: Oh, it is. Where's the icon, Disney?
04/27/2004 Ewan Snow: Matza, what are you talking about? You don't see it?
04/27/2004 Ewan Snow: Oh, I see. On the home page it just says that it's an inside short, but if you go directly to the short it shows the image.
12/13/2004 Dylan Danko: Matza, I demand at least two extra stars from you at some point!
12/13/2004 Jon Matza: You think its sirloin-ness is self-evident? You'll have to make a case then, since I still don't see it. I'm sure TREE would appreciate this, though.
12/13/2004 Dylan Danko: Because it's funny if utterly childish.
12/13/2004 Dylan Danko: If I hadn't brought Ewan's reckless driving of your car would you have looked more kindly on it?
12/13/2004 TheBuyer: What did he hit?
12/13/2004 Jon Matza: No way. I just don't think there's much that's funny or interesting going on here in terms of premise or language. As for your predictable implication (I didn't like it because I was personally insulted by it), well, here's a similar case in which I wasn't in the short but still thought it was bad. To me, both of these shorts are frat-like in humor & close to mean-spirited in tone. In general I do think it's a questionable (and possibly unethical) practice to write shorts whose entire purpose is portraying people you know in ridiculous/emasculating positions while mixing fact & fiction. And if you're going to do it it's doubly unethical to answer all criticisms by insinuating that the target is being oversensitive, unable to take a joke, etc. (The record will show I was never a fan of any of the Danko-as-ridiculous-character shorts, either.) No doubt you'll counter that in my recent Disney short I depicted him as a weeping, ponytailed, unitard-wearing, alternately self-satisfied and hypersensitive freakazoid with a chin-implant. But I also gave him massive chest and thighs and a mint internal monologue! Plus (more seriously) I'd argue the careful reader will discern a difference in our respective authorial intentions and tones, and will note that mine came off as affectionate/surreal while yours didn't, particularly (I think). Moreover the whole purpose of my short wasn't to ridicule the character in question--there's all kinds of other stuff going on. But I could be a) mistaken that there's anything wrong with this practice or if there is, b) just as guilty of it as you. Perhaps some disinterested guests or gays can comment...
12/13/2004 Dylan Danko: You may have given Disney a massive chest and thighs (very very gay) but I gave him a belly ring. You may claim I'm back pedaling but I swear I was joking with that last comment. You're right about there being nothing funny going on in terms of premise or language but I think some of the details are funny (I laughed when I read it today) but you can't say that the premise was mean spirited. Despite being into Magic, Disney is not gay and it's obvious that the author knows that. In fact, the frat-like tone of the short makes that clear. It's a stupid "your momma joke." This short was a reaction to some similar ribbing I'd taken from Disney at the time, though I can't now remember the details. I find your comment about ethics slightly strange. There's nothing about the short that is true or insinuated. Also, who is insinuating that the target is oversensitive? Unless, of course, you think that you were the target in which case I apologize. My motive was simply to let the world know what a fag Disney is. I can right more later but I'm actually taking a break from a very important meeting. (This is really true)
12/13/2004 Dylan Danko: Let me clarify something: There's nothing in the jokey details of the short that's true or insinuated.
12/13/2004 Jon Matza: What, how dare you, etc. Re "Also, who is insinuating that the target is oversensitive?" In the short I linked to you repeatedly insinuated (or claimed outright) that QC's reaction resulted from oversensitivity/hurt feelings rather than his stated aesthetic objections to the short. In the case of this one I didn't mean Disney took any particular offense; I was referring to your seemingly suggesting below that my low vote resulted from having taken personal offense to the short. As I said, my objections were aesthetic (and ethical in a general, not personal sense). Though I guess now you're saying that suggestion was a joke(?)
Re "There's nothing about the short that is true or insinuated"...unh? What about "Ewan and Matza used to live together down the road from me in Cambridge"? Or the "car thing"? Or games of "I never" in our kitchen? You confuse me, brother.
12/13/2004 Dylan Danko: In response to your last point, please read my clarification. Yes, you and Ewan lived together, there were games of "I never" but surely these aren't the details you're objecting to. I think you're misreading my criticism of QC in that earlier short though we did address this there. I didn't think he was being oversensitive, I thought - and it seems somewhat (only somewhat) embarrassing in hindsight - his vitriolic reaction (calling it a "shitter", castigating people who liked it etc.,) had something to do with his feelings about me in general, NOT because he took offense at my portrayal of him as a conniving handjobber. At any rate, I'm not sure what that has to do with this short.
12/13/2004 Jon Matza: In any event I a) still don't care for/feel I owe you stars for this short and b) believe that in general, writing shorts in which the entire premise is the depiction of one's friends (or enemies) as homos/stooges is the refuge of scoundrels, lazy writers and/or trees. In short I have never felt so disappointed in any other person.
12/14/2004 Dylan Danko: I think I would have to agree. It was certainly lazy...but I still laugh at some of it. That's all I was really saying. Your disappointment in me can never match my disappointment in me. Disney is still gay.
12/14/2004 anonymous: Hey guys, what's going on?
12/14/2004 TREE (5): Just because Matza said I would like it. I don't actually like it at all.
12/15/2004 Jon Matza: I certainly learned a lesson here. Never again will I try to speak for/predict the reactions of a such a complex & unpredictable intellect.