About the Author

Satiricalifragilistic grew up during the Disney Renaissance, and The Little Mermaid was the first movie she ever saw in theaters at age 3. Her mother flatly refused to let her leave the theater when Ursula got huge and terrifying, and maybe that explains her troubled psyche.

While she'll admit to being an inveterate nitpicker, she firmly believes in loving a piece of art even while criticizing it, and in the importance of engaging critically with what she loves. She has special contempt for anyone who tries to claim the politics in Disney films don't matter because "they're just movies," because she knows exactly how much the Disney Canon influenced her little gradeschool self—for good and for ill!

She loves art, design, music, dancing, movies from Hollywood's Golden Age, and British comedy...expect a lot of these to turn up in her reviews and mashups!

On Correctly Dating Historical Fiction

I've noticed a lot of people responding to my Frozen/Tangled debunking with some variant of "But it must have taken place in at least 1790/1890/1828 because it has Mozart/tandem bicycles/cupcakes!" and I wanted to address how this approach to dating fictional works is misguided.

Quite simply, it is making the mistake of dating fiction the way you would date actual historical documents. In real life, any single item may provide a minimum date because that item would have to exist in the real world in order to appear. So, a historic photo with a single item from 100 years later than the rest of the material would definitively date it to at least the later time period (i.e., meaning it's a fake). However, the same does not hold true for fiction, because we already know it's a fake...that's what fiction means! In fiction, it is more correct to take the overall appearance of the work and the predominant themes of costume, architecture, technology, and trappings to set a time period that the author probably intended. Remember we're looking for *intent* here, rather than when something actually happened (if we're looking for items to definitively date something in reality, that's trivially easy: Tangled is from 2010 and Frozen is from 2013).


Debunking the Counter-Theory to the Previous Frozen/Tangled Debunking

I recently did a costume analysis for those stubborn Frozen/Tangled shippers,

By which I mean this literal ship.

And today I'd like to share some pretty sad and hilarious counter-arguments that I just can't leave un-mocked. One even went so far as to chide me for failing to properly account for Jane Porter's costumes in Tarzan since that link has apparently been confirmed:




"Hitler": Eddie Izzard meets the Hunchback of Notre Dame

What with their mutual fondness for murdering gypsies and conquering Paris, The Hunchback of Notre Dame's Frollo seems the perfect casting for Eddie Izzard's brilliant summary of the life and times of Adolf Hitler. Also with some cameo appearances from other notable mass murderers!


"Unattended Bag": Eddie Izzard meets Tangled

The cast of Tangled (2010) has a run-in with some incompetent security when they come across the ominous unattended bag from Eddie Izzard's reminiscences.