Imagine a DHMIS AU where when Duck Guy shows off the chicken picnic, Red Guy’s all ‘we need to talk’ and starts lecturing Duck Guy on the proper way to prepare chicken and that raw chicken can kill you and then starts going really off-topic as he gets more frustrated and that’s their entire segment of the video:

“I’ve known you since we were kids and you keep eating raw meat and everyone keeps trying to stop you but you keep going and I’ve had enough. Raw chicken can literally kill you, you know. People aren’t meant to eat raw meat but apparently you missed out on the memo.”

The scenes with Yellow in the Love Cult still happen like normal, and when it cuts back to the two of them, Red Guy’s still talking.

“You’re literally a bird, and you’re eating another bird, isn’t that cannibalism? Was - was this bird like us? Am I eating a dead person? Did they have a family? How did they die? Did you kill this chicken? Is this because you can’t fly? Damnit, I already told you you can’t fly because you don’t have fingers, stop being so salty.”

anonymous asked:

It feels like Louis Walsh didn't get the memo. Niall is the most loyal of the loyal and Louis T is a label exec in the making. So, not monsters. I wonder if this is a case of Walsh being behind the plot or if he was genuinely told to make these implications about all the boys. He could have specified names-- he's certainly done that in the past. Interesting that he didn't. I guess we'll wait and see if they send him out to do clean-up.

Nah, they’re setting the stage for Niall & Louis to “betray” Simon just like Harry and Liam did and leave he and Syco in the dust. 

But you’re right. He’s saying “some of them” when, according to Simon, only Liam has done Simon wrong (cry me a river). Zayn and Harry originally betrayed him, but later they backtracked since Zayn and Harry (allegedly) stayed with a Sony label. 

The more this gets talked about, the sooner I think it’s coming and I can’t wait!

More notes on ‘Maurice’ (1971): concerning the background to E. M. Forster’s initial inspiration, and his lengthy process of revising his initial 1913-14 (private, unpublished) draft across several decades

In her Memo about “Maurice”: Part 1, @a-different-equation​ suggested:

The most important part isn’t part of the text (novel + movie)

YES, QUITE. I started to draft a response – fleshing out this point and filling in some of the contextual (rather than textual) complexities. But it got very long, so I’m doing this as a new post! My thoughts below include links – and some ‘discussion points’ that others taking part in the Queer Classics Book Club may find interesting/useful…

Keep reading

More notes on ‘Maurice’ (1971), 2: Conventional masterplots and Forster‘s ‘new departure’

This time, in response to @a-different-equation’s Memo about “Maurice”: Part 3, a quote I very much like.

@a-different-equation asked:

What’s different? Is E. M. Forster’s novel (and the movie adaptation) – with its reliance on ‘classical’ tropes/motifs – really THAT gay?

‘When Maurice, the latecomer among Forster’s completed novels, was published posthumously in 1971, many reviewers saw the book as a failure. Time and time again the text was seen as “simple” and dated in its treatment of homosexuality. Often behind the negative assessment of the novel was the view that a text addressing male–male desire could not be good art. […]

Maurice can be seen as highly conventional, combining two of the main masterplots of the novel as a genre, the Bildungsroman and the “marriage plot”. It is, though, also a new departure for the novel, as Forster had to meet the technical challenge of writing a Bildungsroman where the result of the protagonist’s engagement with society is the decision to live outside it, and a “marriage plot” where the lovers are two men.

‘What the novel calls the “[b]eautiful conventions’ (Maurice, [Ch. 33]) of heterosexual love and marriage are not available to Forster. When compared with earlier literature addressing maturation and male–male relationships in this period, Maurice was a marked advance. Gregory Woods [A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, 1998, p.217] has noted that “at the end of the nineteenth century male homosexuality (and lesbianism less often and less emphatically) starts to be written about as an essentially tragic condition”: the project of Maurice, though, is to recast earlier texts as comedy. […] The aim was to address individual maturation with the outcome of comedy, while remaining attentive to the wide range of homosexual experience.’

Howard J. Booth (2007)Maurice’, from The Cambridge Companion to E. M. Forster, edited by David Bradshaw, pp.173–4

tag game

 I was tagged by the wonderful @galatheneius. Thank you :)

Countries i’ve lived in: England

Favourite fandom: all my fandoms are tiny so i’m just happy to find people in them lol

Languages you speak: English, did French at school and now can understand small bits but has forgotten how to speak it, very basic Spanish, a few phrases of Polish

Favourite film of 2016: no clue

Last article you read: idk

Shuffle your music library and put your first 3 songs here: Memo by Years and Years, Conspiracy by Paramore, Robbers by The 1975

Last thing you bought online: Tickets to see You Me At Six in October!!!!!!!

Any phobias or fears? dying, throwing up & seeing others throw up, rats, I have an issue with birds invading my personal space and a phobia of Peacocks

How would you describe yourself? on a good day; kind, intelligent, creative, open minded, funny, somewhat confident, self assured. On a bad day i’m a little less nice to myself

how would your enemies describe you? I dont/ didn't really have enemies per ce but i have been described as a geek, freak, nerd, weak, ugly, tramp, slut, dirty, poor, boring, annoying, obsessive, embarrassing  by people in the past

Who would you take a bullet for? idk given the whole death phobia thing

if you had money to spare what would you buy first? books

I tag @bookofademigod @maddyten @thehana7991 @petitepancakes @princesshavilliard @sleepybooksloth