While it's nice to know we share something in common (for who, really, cannot love Feathers McGraw, in spite of his venality), does it need to be pointed out that Clark Kent has been using this dodge for well on 70 years now?

Brilliant. I can't wait to hear your insights about Superman's glasses or Bugs Bunny dressed as a woman. Ironically, Feather's disguise is much like this form of intellectual treacle: More (fake) information leading to (fake) insights, leading further from any real truth. The disguising knowledge of Marxist/Structuralist overanalysis hides the fact that the world is collapsing and you're talking about a cartoon penguin. Real knowledge--that is pragmatic knowledge that correlates to actual events--is disguised as only the manifestation of a hidden set of subconscious motives, control structures, and Freudian symbols. This conveys power on the critic as the shaman who can see beyond reality to the underlying animal spirits. His critiques cannot be adequately countered, because they are not describing measurable reality. A penguin can represent racism and the other (in that it's black and white), or the subjugation of animals (in that it's a wild animal disguised as a domesticated bird) or colonialism (because it's from the south pole), or literally an infinite number of things, which means that these interpretations mean nothing (or one divided by infinity, close to nothing). In short, this analysis is the literary equivalent of astrology, numerology, or Nostradamian predictions, and should be treated about as seriously as these other junk sciences by serious intellectuals.

I bought a hat this morning.

mr. me, that's brutally good writing. i love "critic as shaman"--a phrase as efficient as it is elegant.

@3 FTW.
Thanks, Charles. This post made my day, and reminded me that I should be seeing Wallace and Gromit again soon.

I do not believe that comparing Bugs Bunny/ Bugs-in-a-dress to Feathers/ Chicken is quite accurate. Elmer obviously wouldn't recognize a rabbit if it jumped in his lap and kissed him [which Bugs often did]. I do not recall that other cartoon-people were convinced by the "disguise" [although it's been a while since I've seen a Bugs Bunny cartoon]. This points to a perceptual fault that is specific to Elmer Fudd rather than a generalized error. Pyschologically, the disguise being obvious to the viewer but not the viewed gives the viewer a sense of superiority for being "in on the joke" and possessing knowledge that others lack. This sensation is what motivates conspiracy theorists, not cartoon artists [who typically seek only a cheap laugh].

On the other hand, maybe Elmer is attracted to cross-dressers to such a degree that he ignores species. It could be either/ or.

what the fuck is with this babble shit

wallace and gromit rule, i got this episode on tape 10 years ago. you just now heard about them?

Bizarre to see Wallace and Gromit on here.

It's Nick Park, he's the genius behind it.

Ah, I remember about 10 years ago, when the new Wallace and Gromit episode was the highlight of Christmas T.V. These are true masterpieces. The episode this is from, 'The Wrong Trousers', may have been the best of the three.

@1, Clark Kent's disguise almost always ran much deeper than just his glasses. In most incarnations, Kal-El would act and even sound different as Clark Kent than he would as Superman. Clark Kent would often be bumbling and clumsy and shy around girls (especially Lois Lane). In the comic books, there were occasional mentions that, without his glasses, Clark Kent looked a lot like Superman, prompting derisive laughter because the notion of Clark Kent being Superman was such a silly, laughable idea to those who "knew" him.

Interestingly, the TV series, Lois and Clark, probably came the closest to using just the glasses alone as Clark Kent's disguise, ala, Feathers McGraw. In that series, Lois Lane (played by Teri Hatcher) could not recognize that Superman was Clark Kent, but later instantly recognized Clark Kent in a full-blown disguise complete with silly hat and fake beard, even though Clark Kent looked, acted, and sounded exactly like Superman in every way.

Bugs Bunny in a dress gives me a boner.

Are you stoned?

I read this post.

I didn't bother to read or even notice the byline.

I got to the end, and thought to myself: 'What an idiotic post!'

And then I thought to myself, 'Was that Mudede?' and scrolled back up to check myself. Sure enough.

Your consistency is consistent.

Mr. Mudede, the idea of an intelligence that breaks when information is increased is intriguing but not entirely novel. Sutdies were done on bookies using horse races that happened some years ago (to ensure control) and the bookies were asked to call the races. Then, they were given more information, trainer, age, etc., and asked to call the race again. Their accuracy remained either remained constant or, more likely, went down when the amount of information they were privy to increased.

I've seen Wallace and Gromit's "Wrong Trousers" about 5-10 times and have always thought that bit with the rubber glove hat very funny.

It's meant to be a send up of the Superman/Clark Kent thin disguise joke. (Could Lois and everyone else really not tell?) It's funny when Wallace says "It's you!?" incredulously when he makes the connection.

And I think that's about all that can really be said about that. Except to go out and see Curse of the Were-Rabbit today!

Coming soon to a Mudede screenplay:

"My Dinner with schweighsr"

Co-starring Charles and Mr. Me, guest appearance by elswinger.