May 13th, 2008


└ Tags: ,

Discussion (35)¬

  1. Heather says:

    just one question… is the bandersnatch frumious? if so should we be concerned?

    will there be any tum-tum trees, while you’re in a carollian mood? 😀

    aw poo that’s three questions… But really, that’s the awesomest rendition of a bandersnatch I’ve ever seen!

  2. Leela says:

    Will the jabberwocky be making an appearance? I gotta admit, I got a good nerd-thrill out of the bandersnatch.

  3. D.W. Drang says:

    Obviously not Jinxian Bandersnatch…

  4. Well thank goodness it’s not a boojum.

  5. Kayru says:

    “Itselves” is likely the most ingenious word I’ve ever seen created. Fits perfectly with these Bandersnatch.

  6. bA nAn A says:

    No, I don’t think these bandersnatch are frumious. But really, I just had the biggest joygasm ever on this page. <3

  7. Squeegy says:

    I think we should shun it just in case.

  8. Travis says:

    Why would you shun them? They seem very polite.

    And why do they have reigns? They are evidently sentient, so should be able to direct themselves.

  9. Eugene says:

    I believe frumious was only ever meant to define the power and viciousness of its biting jaws, so they could still be frumious in that way. Heaven knows those teeth there are massive. It doesn’t exactly have necks that can extend, but on the whole, it’s probably the least inaccurate depiction of a bandersnatch I’ve seen in an original work.

  10. Fluffy says:

    What in God’s good name are you people talking about? oooooooooooooo!!! We’re making up words. Okay then, here goes, the bandersnatch looks abit xerfish but you can never tell due to the subtle differences of their hfruths. But in any case, reigns shouldn’t apply because of seqr. But i’ll let it pass.

  11. Faranior says:

    Silence! Speak not of things you do not understand…

    …wiki it then unleash any ignorance left 😛

  12. Michael says:

    It doesn’t look like it would be able to run very fast, though, which is the other thing the original Bandersnatch was proverbial for.

  13. Keenath says:

    I love the multi-singular pronouns.

  14. Nifar says:

    Of course the unspeakable trader of incuriosities would have banderstatch pulling his wagon.

    One wonders if the Jubjub bird shall be making an appearance.

  15. Nifar says:

    Also one can assume that these are not a frumious bandersnatch, since frumious describes something of a fuming and furious nature.

  16. Mark Antony says:

    Digger should totally have a vorpal pickaxe. That would kick ass.

  17. Hunter says:

    Yay! Alice in Wonderland reference!

  18. ohhh snark references!!!

  19. Sildraug says:

    @Travis: They have reigns because everyone wants a turn at kingship.

  20. Absconding_Cascade says:

    God(s) damn it the site won’t post/allow me to see if my comment has been posted.

  21. Absconding_Cascade says:

    Oh of course it posts the complaint about it not posting after I fail multiple times to put up the post I want to make and won’t post the comment even though it worked for me only a couple of minutes ago … *SCREAMS* … Anyway Mark can you Make a Vorpal pickaxe without magic? As if it’s not possible then Digger would probaly politely refuse the Vorpal pickaxe wasting the valuable time of any character Making/looking for said Pickaxe.

  22. Andrew says:

    Just give it a monomolecular edge.

  23. Tarnish says:

    @Absconding-reading your post made me *snicker-snack*

  24. Roscoe Del'Tane says:

    Nifar, of COURSE the Jubjub bird has made an appearance. What do you think our favorite Shadowchild hatched out of?

  25. ReySquared says:

    O frabjous day! Cthulhu Callay!

    …waiiiit a minute. The mome raths outgrabe…? 😮

  26. Ryn says:

    Damnit, Andrew, I felt clever hinking that exact phrase, and then I read your post! Thanks…

  27. Marilyse says:

    The wonderful twisted plural grammar… and the teeth! I may faint from awesome poisoning, but it was worth it.

  28. jaynee says:

    “reins”; yes. “reigns”; one rather hopes not.

  29. lduke says:

    @SpeakerToManagers Are you certain you could tell the difference between your Boojum and a Snark?

  30. Elkian says:


  31. JET73L says:

    Oh, crumbs. It’s a miniature, two-headed, four-legged [strike]purple people eater[/strike] jabberwock, and a smart one at that, or at least one that was taught to imitate a smart one. At least now we know how the moles gamboled (they must have been interfertile with borogoves).

    I wonder if Trader Manual is the Jub-Jub Bird? Unlikely, but considering his feathery mane and beak-like bandana, certainly possible.

    It is unlikely that there would be a nonmagical way to make a monomolecular blade, even with wombats’ uncanny obsidian-working abilities.

    I like the pluralization. Creepy, but perfectly accurate (since neither alone is a bandersnatch, but they are two. Compare “we are a fandom”, “they are a warren”).

  32. Dare says:

    I keep picturing the bandersnatch sounding like an Aquilish from Star Wars (yeah, I know they can’t speak English but I watch so much subtitled stuff it somehow all works itself out in my head)

  33. JLawson says:

    If there’s only a single hind leg – that’s a Pierson’s Puppeteer from Larry Niven’s Known Space/Ringworld series.

    If it’s got two, it’s a bandersnatch.

    Simple, really….

  34. larry g says:

    .oO(Image of a cross breed of a Pierson’s Puppeteer and a Jinxian Bandersnatch) Where’s the Brain Bleach??

  35. Matthias says:

    I’m pretty sure Puppeteers wouldn’t actually refer to themselves as plural. The bandersnatch strikes me kind of like Pterry’s description of a bulls – it’s thinking with one brain, but it’s got two heads so it’s decided it must obviously be two beings. Hence “we are a bandersnatch”.