Notaro made fun of her own cancer, though, and there's a big difference between making fun of Nazis for being Nazis and making light of someone's struggle with a disease, particularly when the family that watched him die is still alive.

A single plum, floating in perfume, served in a man's hat.

My dad and I saw each of the LOTR films in theaters, and we went again to see FOTR and TTT when ROTK came out. The only thing marring the experience of the third movie (which we saw on opening day) was the three teenage boys in front of us, who HATED Gollum and said "He's such a loser!" every time he came on screen.

I check the dates on that every now and then to see if they've added Toronto. We're right across the border, cmon!! You're not even doing anything with it for ten days in June!

I wish I'd seen Mad Max: Fury Road in the theatre, because I really wasn't wild about it when I saw it at home (for reasons I don't think would necessarily be solved by watching it in a theatre, but who knows?). I'd also love to see that silent black and white version they kept teasing us with…

I love reading about these! Here are some of mine:

I think that is how some people are using it, but very often I've been seeing it said in the context of "he transcended race and gender", and I doubt anyone means "people of any gender can enjoy his music" when they say he transcended gender. They usually seem to be implying that he was beyond the concept of gender…

I've been arguing the same thing in different words all over this thread. Sorry I didn't say it word for word the way you wanted me to.

Anyway, we are talking about his music too, but not in the sense you think we are. No one is claiming that people can't enjoy his music if they're not black. We are saying it's wrong to separate his music from "black music", which ties into his identity as a black artist, and the idea of a person transcending race.

I've made many comments on this thread explaining what I was talking about, and I specifically described what I was talking about when I said

We did say that, several times, and explained what we meant several times in different ways.

Yeah. :( They did get another voice actor for him in Archer: Vice, though, so maybe the character will still return?

(And once again, I know no one's saying he's literally not black.)

Right, that's what we're saying. The argument stemmed from your interpreting the word "transcend" differently, but I think you'll find it was clear from context the sense in which we were using it.

The OP said Prince was a black artist, not that he made art for black people.

Sorry to go through it word by word, but the opening sentence says that Prince was for everyone (which is exactly the opposite of what you said we were claiming), but that he was a "BLACK artist" (black emphasized), arguing against the claims that he transcended race by being beyond it or by making something that…

Yes, I think maybe that distinction might make things clearer. People keep claiming that he transcended race and gender in the same breath. You can't really equate the two.

No one's claiming he wasn't LITERALLY black. People are distancing him from black culture by framing his work as something separate from "black music" or saying "he may have been black, but he wasn't really of any race" or whatever (I'm rewording but I've seen variations of this everywhere over the past couple of…

I don't know where you think I said the first thing. And I'm talking about the people who distance him from other black artists by saying he didn't create "black" music, he transcended blackness, he was somehow beyond the conception of race.

That's not what either I or the person I was responding to said. I have seen MANY people say he transcended race in the "he wasn't truly black (or of any race)" sense, equating it in a way to his ambiguous gender performance, erasing the pride he took in black culture. That's the "transcending race" idea we were…